Digital BW, The Print

Evan,

I think that it is not obvious just who MIS or ConeTech or some of the other companies are. The operative word is that they are small companies. Very small. On top of that, the quad ink side of these operations is only a portion of their business.

My understanding is that MIS is a 2 to 4 person operation with all of the technical side being handled by the founder Bob Zeiss. I am not part of the organization but I don't imagine there is not a lot of profit in this business and certainly none to spend on software development without pumping up the price of the ink drastically. As I recall MIS came out with the first set of quads for the 3000 back in '98 or '99 (Someone jump in here if you have more or better info, I have only been around this since late 2000.) The assumption was, "Here is some ink, see what you can do with it." People like Tyler Boley and Dan Culbertson took a stab at it learning how to do their own CYMK separation curves. MIS's objective was just to market the ink.

ConeTech came later and building on their Iris printing experience tackled both the ink and the software. They are often criticized for the cost of their products but I think this is really unfair given the development costs, the small size of the market, cost of customer support, and the quality of the product. I think the easiest and most trouble free way to get into quads is to buy the Piezo software in its cheapest form ($335) and run it with the MIS FS inks in a CIS. This will get making great prints with no clogs very quickly. It will set you back about $600 - $700 (not including a printer) but in the scope of things I think it is a pretty good deal.

I used to feel much the way you do, before I realized just how small this market still is. I do know that MIS is interested in a software solution and I think that they may find it through ColorByte's ImagePrint 4 RIP which is currently available with profiles for the VM and FS inks. I believe this is $500. Not having run it myself I can't make a recommendation but I looks to be a good alternative to the one mentioned above. More expensive but it works with more inks.

To my mind it may make good sense to have separate companies working on the inks and the software. They require such different technical backgrounds, trying to cover both may not be a good business decision.

The MIS VM inks with the separation curves may not be perfect but it sure is a good deal. I lets people put their toes in digital B&W printing for a very modest investment. In the end I think that you can get prints that are just as good following this approach as you could using Piezo or ImagePrint 4. It is more about ease of use and time spent.

The other issue is that Epson has announced a B&W solution that will come with the next generation of printers. I am not confident they will meet my standards but they will satisfy a lot of people. Why would such small companies as MIS and ConeTech invest in software development in the face of such deep pockets as Epson?

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: wolarsky 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:02 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] For Martin About Marketing


  Martin, 

  I realize that you are not commerically connected with MIS, but 
  something does not make much sense to me. You mentioned when you 
  posted Tyler's new curves that he donated the effort and the curves, 
  since he does not even have a 1280. In your post about the Canon 
  9000, you mention that MIS just makes ink - its up to others to 
  develop the workflows.

  Why is this? Wouldn't it make sense for the company that produces the 
  inks to pay someone to produce the curves and profiles? MIS, or 
  anyone else, could then sell these at a reasonable price and actually 
  make a profit. MIS is really in the business of selling a method of 
  printing, not just inks. The easier it is to use the system, the more 
  it will become an accepted method, and the more ink they will sell.

  Having just spent the last three months figuring out how to produce 
  decent prints with their inks, I am acutely aware that the process is 
  closer to joining a secret society, than purchasing software. Each 
  new user posts similar questions, and there is no readily available 
  repository of answers. Charitable individuals such as you and Paul 
  Roark continually answer the same questions.

  Shouldn't MIS organize this whole process a bit better? I apologize 
  for the speech, but I detect that there are a number of frustrated 
  individuals attempting to learn how to use these inks.

  Evan Wolarsky




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

Evan, I understand your frustration.
But we are at the cutting edge of technology here. The main difference IMO
between Cone and MIS is that Cone sells a kit which works together. they
guarantee it. The software really is plug and play - great profiles, works
like a dream. And because they control each element of their system they can
offer great support/knowledge base. For the new user this is the best way
in. Then you find that the inks are bloody expensive and FS works clog-free,
similar quality etc. Then you say, OK how about a warmer/cooler tone, how
about etc? MIS jumps on these 'how about..?' scenarios and allows you to
play. They introduce new inks frequently, they react very quickly to
customer suggestions. But, you are very often pushing the envelope. This
gives you a choice.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "wolarsky" <wolarsky@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 4:02 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] For Martin About Marketing


> Martin,
>
> I realize that you are not commerically connected with MIS, but
> something does not make much sense to me. You mentioned when you
> posted Tyler's new curves that he donated the effort and the curves,
> since he does not even have a 1280. In your post about the Canon
> 9000, you mention that MIS just makes ink - its up to others to
> develop the workflows.
>
> Why is this? Wouldn't it make sense for the company that produces the
> inks to pay someone to produce the curves and profiles? MIS, or
> anyone else, could then sell these at a reasonable price and actually
> make a profit. MIS is really in the business of selling a method of
> printing, not just inks. The easier it is to use the system, the more
> it will become an accepted method, and the more ink they will sell.
>
> Having just spent the last three months figuring out how to produce
> decent prints with their inks, I am acutely aware that the process is
> closer to joining a secret society, than purchasing software. Each
> new user posts similar questions, and there is no readily available
> repository of answers. Charitable individuals such as you and Paul
> Roark continually answer the same questions.
>
> Shouldn't MIS organize this whole process a bit better? I apologize
> for the speech, but I detect that there are a number of frustrated
> individuals attempting to learn how to use these inks.
>
> Evan Wolarsky
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hey Martin, Some info you might find enlightening, It's kinda long-
sorry.
In your repsonse to:     
> Evan,
> 
> I think that it is not obvious just who MIS or ConeTech or some of 
the other companies are. The operative word is that they are small 
companies. Very small. On top of that, the quad ink side of these 
operations is only a portion of their business.

 {Exactly, the quad ink volumes are tiny even for aftermarket inkjet 
suppliers. You can tell how significant the ink sales are by how 
responsive the supplier is. I would quess whoever is supplying MIS's 
inks ( I don't think they make thier own) is very small indeed since 
they have been very responsive to MIS's needs. 
> 
> My understanding is that MIS is a 2 to 4 person operation with all 
of the technical side being handled by the founder Bob Zeiss. I am 
not part of the organization but I don't imagine there is not a lot 
of profit in this business and certainly none to spend on software 
development without pumping up the price of the ink drastically. As I 
recall MIS came out with the first set of quads for the 3000 back 
in '98 or '99 (Someone jump in here if you have more or better info, 
I have only been around this since late 2000.) The assumption 
was, "Here is some ink, see what you can do with it." People like 
Tyler Boley and Dan Culbertson took a stab at it learning how to do 
their own CYMK separation curves. MIS's objective was just to market 
the ink.

{   Actually Lyson was on the ground floor here but they took so long 
developing (apparently thier formulating chemist became rather 
preoccupied with tonal range capabilities and never stopped playing 
with them) and they were using dyes that Sundance gave up on them and 
went to another company. The request was a quad black inkset for the 
Epson 3000 with 130 years of INDOOR lightfastness. "Indoor 
lightfastness" the chemist asked, "yes" they replied asked. So a 
chemist developed the current Piezography inks for the Epson 3000 
that wouldn't fade under indoor light conditions for at least 130 
years. The chemist decided to raise the bar and make the inkset last 
way beyond that and used carbon which will last forever (the 
Piezography site mentions the halflife of carbon as 5000 years but 
that's only carbon 14, carbon 13 and carbon 12 will be here even 
after the universe is long dead and dark). But the carbon inks 
were "too warm" so a dye was added to tone the tone to a more neutral 
tone -big mistake but live and learn. These inks went to market mid 
1999 I think.  Later MIS actually was going to buy the same inks from 
the same company but do to exclusivity and cooperation issues they 
decided that Sundance alone would be able to purchase these inks 
which was fair since they were integral in their development cycle. 
At that point I imagine MIS went to another ink supplier and 
requested a "knock-off" of the Piezography inks. Thus MIS's original 
compatible set was born-with the same uv fade problem as the Piezo 
inks. }  
> 
> ConeTech came later and building on their Iris printing experience 
tackled both the ink and the software. They are often criticized for 
the cost of their products but I think this is really unfair given 
the development costs, the small size of the market, cost of customer 
support, and the quality of the product. I think the easiest and most 
trouble free way to get into quads is to buy the Piezo software in 
its cheapest form ($335) and run it with the MIS FS inks in a CIS. 
This will get making great prints with no clogs very quickly. It will 
set you back about $600 - $700 (not including a printer) but in the 
scope of things I think it is a pretty good deal.
 
  {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in, 
curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works 
really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the 
problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and sold 
to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who fills 
cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone who 
finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of separation 
from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the 
Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This has 
also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by the 
way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and issues 
with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to the 
person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the 
customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging 
specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so 
filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why the 
clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been fixed 
yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}

 
> To my mind it may make good sense to have separate companies 
working on the inks and the software. They require such different 
technical backgrounds, trying to cover both may not be a good 
business decision.
  
  {Right, even the huge OEM's contract most or all their ink from 
other companies. It's called toll blending or toll munufacturing. The 
OEM supplies the formula and the ink company makes it-quietly.}
 
 
> The other issue is that Epson has announced a B&W solution that 
will come with the next generation of printers. I am not confident 
they will meet my standards but they will satisfy a lot of people. 
Why would such small companies as MIS and ConeTech invest in software 
development in the face of such deep pockets as Epson?
 
 {Be patient, some cool things may happen in the not too distant 
future.}

Jeff

Jeff,

Your info is not quite what my experience has been. I was one of the
early-piezo-adopters and have been on Bill and Jon's beta test list
from like Day 3. The piezo ink problems were addressed by Cone (Jon)
and Bill about two years ago. They work very closely with Sundance on
ink and software. I know because some of my software problems very
early on were worked out within 2-3 days. I was one of the first to
experience "greenies" before anyone knew what "greenies" was. Cone
tried everything in his power to get Sundance to address these inks. I
was even copied on some of the emails back and forth between them. In
all fairness to Cone, it isn't about some chemist being out of the
loop. Jon and Bill had very good ideas about what was wrong. I was a
test guinea pig. They were right. Cone is tied to Sundance and
Sundance was not responsive to Cone about it. To say Cone is not
greedy is the understatement of the year. I know at least 20
Piezographers besides me who have had complete CIS and ink systems
replaced at Cone's cost. Each seems to know 20 more. I think that Cone
has bent over backwards, and his supplier has just been banking it at
Cone's expense. 

History for me now. I have been working with a new ink which isn't
Sundance's, not MIS's, not Lyson's, not Luminos's. And its another
paradigm leap for a lot of reasons. It works perfect with Piezography.
I think that a lot of people are coming off this beta about now but
we're still not able to say nada-li-squat until May. I hope to be the
first to give a users report.

Brian Magera
**not bam but stilla magera**


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "iwasnvrhere"
<iwasnvrhere@y...> wrote:
>    Hey Martin, Some info you might find enlightening, It's kinda
long-
> sorry.
> In your repsonse to:     
> > Evan,
>  
>   {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in, 
> curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works 
> really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the 
> problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and
sold 
> to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who fills 
> cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone
who 
> finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of separation 
> from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the 
> Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This has 
> also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by the 
> way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and issues 
> with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to the 
> person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the 
> customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
> also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging 
> specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so 
> filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why the 
> clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been
fixed 
> yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}


> {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in, 
> curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works 
> really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the 
> problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and
sold 
> to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who fills 
> cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone
who 
> finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of separation 
> from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the 
> Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This has 
> also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by the 
> way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and issues 
> with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to the 
> person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the 
> customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
> also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging 
> specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so 
> filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why the 
> clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been
fixed 
> yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}

On Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 10:50 PM, magerabamb wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Your info is not quite what my experience has been. I was one of the
> early-piezo-adopters and have been on Bill and Jon's beta test list
> from like Day 3. The piezo ink problems were addressed by Cone (Jon)
> and Bill about two years ago.

Brian,

They were? How about all of the 7000 users who purchased Jon's product 
which did not come out until last March. At that point Jon was still 
denying that there was any problem. Two years ago? I don't think so. He 
has denied there was ever a problem. In fact, the last round of posts I 
read, and that was a while ago, Jon was still sparring with Jim Hayes 
denying there was a problem.

> They work very closely with Sundance on
> ink and software. I know because some of my software problems very
> early on were worked out within 2-3 days. I was one of the first to
> experience "greenies" before anyone knew what "greenies" was. Cone
> tried everything in his power to get Sundance to address these inks. I
> was even copied on some of the emails back and forth between them. In
> all fairness to Cone, it isn't about some chemist being out of the
> loop. Jon and Bill had very good ideas about what was wrong.

They did? Why the heck did they not warn people about the problems if 
they knew?  Why did they let hundreds of people continue to use their 
inks when there was a problem? Many people have lost lots of money due 
to the ink problems with Piezo ink.

> I was a
> test guinea pig. They were right. Cone is tied to Sundance and
> Sundance was not responsive to Cone about it. To say Cone is not
> greedy is the understatement of the year. I know at least 20
> Piezographers besides me who have had complete CIS and ink systems
> replaced at Cone's cost. Each seems to know 20 more. I think that Cone
> has bent over backwards, and his supplier has just been banking it at
> Cone's expense.

This may be, and if so St. Jon is certainly to be commended. But for 
everyone he helped, I am sure there are two that are still mad at him. 
Want names? Cone even offered to give me all the information I wanted 
about his problems if I would sign a "Non Disclosure Agreement". I 
declined because if I did I could never offer my opinions as unbiased 
here on the list.
>
> History for me now. I have been working with a new ink which isn't
> Sundance's, not MIS's, not Lyson's, not Luminos's. And its another
> paradigm leap for a lot of reasons. It works perfect with Piezography.
> I think that a lot of people are coming off this beta about now but
> we're still not able to say nada-li-squat until May. I hope to be the
> first to give a users report.

Boy I sure hope so. We all know that we can get prints that are  
wonderful from inkjet printers. The ink is the main problem.

I am told that a certain major industry writer who has raved about 
Cone's inks is now using a different ink. Things change, but what we 
really need is a long lasting 100+ year quad set with a dmax approaching 
2.0.

Thanks for your thoughts
Mike

>
> Brian Magera
> **not bam but stilla magera**
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "iwasnvrhere"
> <iwasnvrhere@y...> wrote:
>>    Hey Martin, Some info you might find enlightening, It's kinda
> long-
>> sorry.
>> In your repsonse to:
>>> Evan,
>>
>>   {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in,
>> curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works
>> really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the
>> problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and
> sold
>> to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who fills
>> cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone
> who
>> finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of separation
>> from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the
>> Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This has
>> also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by the
>> way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and issues
>> with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to the
>> person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the
>> customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
>> also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging
>> specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so
>> filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why the
>> clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been
> fixed
>> yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}
>
>
>> {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in,
>> curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works
>> really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the
>> problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and
> sold
>> to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who fills
>> cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone
> who
>> finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of separation
>> from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the
>> Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This has
>> also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by the
>> way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and issues
>> with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to the
>> person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the
>> customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
>> also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging
>> specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so
>> filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why the
>> clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been
> fixed
>> yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Jeff,

Thanks for all the history and additional info on the birth of the quad industry. Much appreciated.

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: iwasnvrhere 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:04 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: For Martin About Marketing


     Hey Martin, Some info you might find enlightening, It's kinda long-
  sorry.
  In your repsonse to:     
  > Evan,
  > 
  > I think that it is not obvious just who MIS or ConeTech or some of 
  the other companies are. The operative word is that they are small 
  companies. Very small. On top of that, the quad ink side of these 
  operations is only a portion of their business.

   {Exactly, the quad ink volumes are tiny even for aftermarket inkjet 
  suppliers. You can tell how significant the ink sales are by how 
  responsive the supplier is. I would quess whoever is supplying MIS's 
  inks ( I don't think they make thier own) is very small indeed since 
  they have been very responsive to MIS's needs. 
  > 
  > My understanding is that MIS is a 2 to 4 person operation with all 
  of the technical side being handled by the founder Bob Zeiss. I am 
  not part of the organization but I don't imagine there is not a lot 
  of profit in this business and certainly none to spend on software 
  development without pumping up the price of the ink drastically. As I 
  recall MIS came out with the first set of quads for the 3000 back 
  in '98 or '99 (Someone jump in here if you have more or better info, 
  I have only been around this since late 2000.) The assumption 
  was, "Here is some ink, see what you can do with it." People like 
  Tyler Boley and Dan Culbertson took a stab at it learning how to do 
  their own CYMK separation curves. MIS's objective was just to market 
  the ink.

  {   Actually Lyson was on the ground floor here but they took so long 
  developing (apparently thier formulating chemist became rather 
  preoccupied with tonal range capabilities and never stopped playing 
  with them) and they were using dyes that Sundance gave up on them and 
  went to another company. The request was a quad black inkset for the 
  Epson 3000 with 130 years of INDOOR lightfastness. "Indoor 
  lightfastness" the chemist asked, "yes" they replied asked. So a 
  chemist developed the current Piezography inks for the Epson 3000 
  that wouldn't fade under indoor light conditions for at least 130 
  years. The chemist decided to raise the bar and make the inkset last 
  way beyond that and used carbon which will last forever (the 
  Piezography site mentions the halflife of carbon as 5000 years but 
  that's only carbon 14, carbon 13 and carbon 12 will be here even 
  after the universe is long dead and dark). But the carbon inks 
  were "too warm" so a dye was added to tone the tone to a more neutral 
  tone -big mistake but live and learn. These inks went to market mid 
  1999 I think.  Later MIS actually was going to buy the same inks from 
  the same company but do to exclusivity and cooperation issues they 
  decided that Sundance alone would be able to purchase these inks 
  which was fair since they were integral in their development cycle. 
  At that point I imagine MIS went to another ink supplier and 
  requested a "knock-off" of the Piezography inks. Thus MIS's original 
  compatible set was born-with the same uv fade problem as the Piezo 
  inks. }  
  > 
  > ConeTech came later and building on their Iris printing experience 
  tackled both the ink and the software. They are often criticized for 
  the cost of their products but I think this is really unfair given 
  the development costs, the small size of the market, cost of customer 
  support, and the quality of the product. I think the easiest and most 
  trouble free way to get into quads is to buy the Piezo software in 
  its cheapest form ($335) and run it with the MIS FS inks in a CIS. 
  This will get making great prints with no clogs very quickly. It will 
  set you back about $600 - $700 (not including a printer) but in the 
  scope of things I think it is a pretty good deal.
   
    {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in, 
  curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works 
  really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the 
  problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and sold 
  to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who fills 
  cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone who 
  finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of separation 
  from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the 
  Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This has 
  also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by the 
  way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and issues 
  with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to the 
  person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the 
  customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
  also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging 
  specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so 
  filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why the 
  clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been fixed 
  yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}

   
  > To my mind it may make good sense to have separate companies 
  working on the inks and the software. They require such different 
  technical backgrounds, trying to cover both may not be a good 
  business decision.
    
    {Right, even the huge OEM's contract most or all their ink from 
  other companies. It's called toll blending or toll munufacturing. The 
  OEM supplies the formula and the ink company makes it-quietly.}
   
   
  > The other issue is that Epson has announced a B&W solution that 
  will come with the next generation of printers. I am not confident 
  they will meet my standards but they will satisfy a lot of people. 
  Why would such small companies as MIS and ConeTech invest in software 
  development in the face of such deep pockets as Epson?
   
   {Be patient, some cool things may happen in the not too distant 
  future.}

  Jeff




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

" <MagerabamB@n...> wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> Your info is not quite what my experience has been. I was one of the
> early-piezo-adopters and have been on Bill and Jon's beta test list
> from like Day 3. The piezo ink problems were addressed by Cone (Jon)
> and Bill about two years ago. They work very closely with Sundance 
on
> ink and software. I know because some of my software problems very
> early on were worked out within 2-3 days. I was one of the first to
> experience "greenies" before anyone knew what "greenies" was. Cone
> tried everything in his power to get Sundance to address these 
inks. I
> was even copied on some of the emails back and forth between them. 
In
> all fairness to Cone, it isn't about some chemist being out of the
> loop. Jon and Bill had very good ideas about what was wrong. I was a
> test guinea pig. They were right. 
  
 Not out of the loop, the loop was a convulted retelling after 
retelling- all verbal- of the problem. No data, prints, cartridges or 
CIS parts made it to the chemist until about six months ago. Way past 
due. Ever play the game where everyone gets in a circle and a one 
person starts with a story and passes it off the next person who then 
passes it to the next? I'm not faulting anyone for the problems. Both 
Cone and Sundance have worked hard for solutions. Sundance has been 
responsive but they're in a difficult middle position. As for the 
guinea pig testing, what did they discover, I would be very 
interested in the results.  

Cone is tied to Sundance and
> Sundance was not responsive to Cone about it. To say Cone is not
> greedy is the understatement of the year. I know at least 20
> Piezographers besides me who have had complete CIS and ink systems
> replaced at Cone's cost. Each seems to know 20 more. I think that 
Cone has bent over backwards, and his supplier has just been banking 
it at Cone's expense. 

  Well we won't know until Mr. Cone tell's us how much he pays for 
his supplies. Maybe if you ask real nice he'll tell you.  
> 
> History for me now. I have been working with a new ink which isn't
> Sundance's, not MIS's, not Lyson's, not Luminos's. And its another
> paradigm leap for a lot of reasons. It works perfect with 
Piezography.
> I think that a lot of people are coming off this beta about now but
> we're still not able to say nada-li-squat until May. I hope to be 
the first to give a users report.
 
 You might be surpised at whose inks go where. Are you in direct 
contact with a manufacturer or is this an integrator? Or is that too 
much nada? If it is that's ok, I know all too well the secrets of 
this market. Of which an intoxicated sales person will gladly spew 
given enough encouragment. 

Care for another drink?
Jeff
 
 
>

No problem, inkjet's been a fast developing technology and it's 
nice to see it being used in it's highest form-in my opinion. It's 
regretable that there are so many bitter indivuals out there but 
after spending the last couple of months in this group I've finally 
seen for myself why people are getting so understandably frustrated. 
It will be interesting to see how the art develops- Cone is pricing 
himself out of the market with MIS hard on his heels but they and 
anyone else using the Piezography software with knock-off inks will 
reach obsolence as better software and printer systems come into 
being. It seems most people arent to fond of the curves thing and it 
sounds like a lot of work which ultimatly distracts the end user from 
enjoying the actual printing-not to mention making a living. Cone's 
ink problems will be fixed and there is always a cheaper ink supplier 
out there- I'll be laughing when someone starts touting VM-set 
inksets for only six bucks per 4 oz bottle-especially if it's my ink. 
By the way are you still waiting for that ultimate inkset/driver 
combo cause it sounds rather... interesting. It could be done with 
all pigments (cursed dyes, how we hate them, hate them I say) but the 
yellow would have some uv light issues.
Danm I write too much! Slap with a wet noodle and call me prolix. 

Jeff

> Jeff,
> 
> Thanks for all the history and additional info on the birth of the 
quad industry. Much appreciated.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: iwasnvrhere 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... 
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:04 AM
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: For Martin About Marketing
> 
> 
>      Hey Martin, Some info you might find enlightening, It's kinda 
long-
>   sorry.
>   In your repsonse to:     
>   > Evan,
>   > 
>   > I think that it is not obvious just who MIS or ConeTech or some 
of 
>   the other companies are. The operative word is that they are 
small 
>   companies. Very small. On top of that, the quad ink side of these 
>   operations is only a portion of their business.
> 
>    {Exactly, the quad ink volumes are tiny even for aftermarket 
inkjet 
>   suppliers. You can tell how significant the ink sales are by how 
>   responsive the supplier is. I would quess whoever is supplying 
MIS's 
>   inks ( I don't think they make thier own) is very small indeed 
since 
>   they have been very responsive to MIS's needs. 
>   > 
>   > My understanding is that MIS is a 2 to 4 person operation with 
all 
>   of the technical side being handled by the founder Bob Zeiss. I 
am 
>   not part of the organization but I don't imagine there is not a 
lot 
>   of profit in this business and certainly none to spend on 
software 
>   development without pumping up the price of the ink drastically. 
As I 
>   recall MIS came out with the first set of quads for the 3000 back 
>   in '98 or '99 (Someone jump in here if you have more or better 
info, 
>   I have only been around this since late 2000.) The assumption 
>   was, "Here is some ink, see what you can do with it." People like 
>   Tyler Boley and Dan Culbertson took a stab at it learning how to 
do 
>   their own CYMK separation curves. MIS's objective was just to 
market 
>   the ink.
> 
>   {   Actually Lyson was on the ground floor here but they took so 
long 
>   developing (apparently thier formulating chemist became rather 
>   preoccupied with tonal range capabilities and never stopped 
playing 
>   with them) and they were using dyes that Sundance gave up on them 
and 
>   went to another company. The request was a quad black inkset for 
the 
>   Epson 3000 with 130 years of INDOOR lightfastness. "Indoor 
>   lightfastness" the chemist asked, "yes" they replied asked. So a 
>   chemist developed the current Piezography inks for the Epson 3000 
>   that wouldn't fade under indoor light conditions for at least 130 
>   years. The chemist decided to raise the bar and make the inkset 
last 
>   way beyond that and used carbon which will last forever (the 
>   Piezography site mentions the halflife of carbon as 5000 years 
but 
>   that's only carbon 14, carbon 13 and carbon 12 will be here even 
>   after the universe is long dead and dark). But the carbon inks 
>   were "too warm" so a dye was added to tone the tone to a more 
neutral 
>   tone -big mistake but live and learn. These inks went to market 
mid 
>   1999 I think.  Later MIS actually was going to buy the same inks 
from 
>   the same company but do to exclusivity and cooperation issues 
they 
>   decided that Sundance alone would be able to purchase these inks 
>   which was fair since they were integral in their development 
cycle. 
>   At that point I imagine MIS went to another ink supplier and 
>   requested a "knock-off" of the Piezography inks. Thus MIS's 
original 
>   compatible set was born-with the same uv fade problem as the 
Piezo 
>   inks. }  
>   > 
>   > ConeTech came later and building on their Iris printing 
experience 
>   tackled both the ink and the software. They are often criticized 
for 
>   the cost of their products but I think this is really unfair 
given 
>   the development costs, the small size of the market, cost of 
customer 
>   support, and the quality of the product. I think the easiest and 
most 
>   trouble free way to get into quads is to buy the Piezo software 
in 
>   its cheapest form ($335) and run it with the MIS FS inks in a 
CIS. 
>   This will get making great prints with no clogs very quickly. It 
will 
>   set you back about $600 - $700 (not including a printer) but in 
the 
>   scope of things I think it is a pretty good deal.
>    
>     {I definetly agree with you here, the development the plug in, 
>   curves, and inkset was very expensive but it works and it works 
>   really well so all parties agree that it was worth it. But the 
>   problem is the path the inks follow is this. The inks a made and 
sold 
>   to Sundance who in turn ships them to a cartridge filler who 
fills 
>   cartridges and bottles for a fee. Then the inks/carts go to Cone 
who 
>   finally sells them to end users. That's four degrees of 
separation 
>   from start to finish and accounts for the high price of the 
>   Piezography ink, Cone's not greedy, it's the product flow. This 
has 
>   also made it a nightmare for the ink chemist (not inkologist by 
the 
>   way) to address the issues with that set. The "greenies" and 
issues 
>   with the CIS system to name a few. By the time problems came to 
the 
>   person who could fix them they had gone though five people: the 
>   customer with the problem-pro photographer usually, Cone's people-
>   also digi/photography people, then Sundance-software/imaging 
>   specialist, and finally to the chemist. By then the problem is so 
>   filtered and distorted a solution was impossible.  This is why 
the 
>   clog and greenies issues that some people run into haven't been 
fixed 
>   yet. Very frustrating for all parties involved.}
> 
>    
>   > To my mind it may make good sense to have separate companies 
>   working on the inks and the software. They require such different 
>   technical backgrounds, trying to cover both may not be a good 
>   business decision.
>     
>     {Right, even the huge OEM's contract most or all their ink from 
>   other companies. It's called toll blending or toll munufacturing. 
The 
>   OEM supplies the formula and the ink company makes it-quietly.}
>    
>    
>   > The other issue is that Epson has announced a B&W solution that 
>   will come with the next generation of printers. I am not 
confident 
>   they will meet my standards but they will satisfy a lot of 
people. 
>   Why would such small companies as MIS and ConeTech invest in 
software 

>   development in the face of such deep pockets as Epson?
>    
>    {Be patient, some cool things may happen in the not too distant 
>   future.}
> 
>   Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Brian Magera wrote
>Cone is tied to Sundance and
> Sundance was not responsive to Cone about it.

Its only recently that the name Sundance has come to light
on this list. In the early days, Piezography was a Jon Cone / Cone Editions
product,
developed by the Iris master himself.

In a recent call to Cone tech support
which I learned that by upgrading from Piezography
5.1- -  to - - 5.13 - - to - - 6.0 - - to - - 6.02

I had in fact changed paper profiles
and that "the developer keeps changing profiles
even though we assked him not too"...

All of a sudden Cone's invention was not Cone's invention
and Cone has no control over "the developer".

Say it ain't so Joe (Jon).
Disappointed.

Thanks
Bob Obenland