Digital BW, The Print

Nick,

>Well, luck apparently isn't with me.

Could you scan and e-mail to me a 21-step test file print done with the vm
inkset/workflow so that I can see what the problem looks like with you
system?  If you are interested, I'm sure people on the forum will mail some
test strips to you so that you can see if it's just your printer, the 1160
in general, or the entire approach that produces the results you find
objectionable.

>... For black-only, I want the intensity of the
>Epson OEM black cartridge with better stability,
>at least behind glass or in a plastic sleeve in the dark.
...

The blacker they are, the more they fade and color shift.  I think that the
Piezo and VM/FS blacks are the best combination.  (They appear to be the
same ink.)  The Piezo/VM/FS black is much more neutral and stable than the
Piezo midtones, which appear to contain substantial dyes.  So, if they are
dark enough for you, the pigmented Pzo/VM/FS ink will give you about as good
a stability as there is.

One step blacker is the Generations black.  It may contain substantial dye,
however, and it does fade and color shift more than the Pzo/VM/FS black, in
my tests.  However, I'd assume it is still much more stable than the Epson
black.  After all, I think Generations inkset is up to "75 years" in its
fade testing results.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

>Could you scan and e-mail to me a 21-step test file print done with the vm
>inkset/workflow so that I can see what the problem looks like with you
>system?  If you are interested, I'm sure people on the forum will mail some
>test strips to you so that you can see if it's just your printer, the 1160
>in general, or the entire approach that produces the results you find
>objectionable.

Paul -

Thanks for the kind offer, but having you look at a scan of a step wedge
doesn't really address the problem, which is that _I_ don't like what the
prints of my own pictures look like when I'm holding them in my hand. If
the difficulty lies in my particular 1160, I'm out of luck: I'm sure those
printers are even more difficult to find than they were six weeks ago, when
I paid 50% over list for the one I'm using. If it's the 1160 in general, I
may as well just get a 1280, print with the K cartridge at 2880 dpi, and
warn everyone to frame the prints facing _toward_ the wall so they don't
fade... If it's the entire approach... but I'm already acting on that
assumption.

Todd Flashner has offered to send one of _his_ prints so I can see it in
the flesh, and I think that will be a better way of judging the process. If
his results look wonderful, _then_ I can try to duplicate his procedure and
see where the problem crops up.

>>... For black-only, I want the intensity of the
>>Epson OEM black cartridge with better stability,
>>at least behind glass or in a plastic sleeve in the dark.

>The blacker they are, the more they fade and color shift.

I was afraid of that...

I think that the
>Piezo and VM/FS blacks are the best combination. .... if they are
>dark enough for you, the pigmented Pzo/VM/FS ink will give you about as good
>a stability as there is.
>One step blacker is the Generations black.  It may contain substantial dye,
>however, and it does fade and color shift more than the Pzo/VM/FS black, in
>my tests.  However, I'd assume it is still much more stable than the Epson
>black.  After all, I think Generations inkset is up to "75 years" in its
>fade testing results.

The Piezo and VM/FS inks are not black enough for me, but I have one
cartridge of the new Generations black (we're talking about the "Enhanced
beta" version, right?) on order. And I'll be happy with 75 years of fade
resistance for the prints.

Thank you again for taking so much time over this.

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

on 8/23/01 12:24 PM, Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> Thanks for the kind offer, but having you look at a scan of a step wedge
> doesn't really address the problem, which is that _I_ don't like what the
> prints of my own pictures look like when I'm holding them in my hand.

My guess is that you are getting too much separation in your deep tones,
combined with the limits of Dmax on matte papers. I recommend you try adding
a fair amount of contrast to your image to "force" your blacks.

If you haven't printed out a step wedge you should. You were implying
posterization, and a wedge might reveal this better than a print.

It's important for those who are trying to help you to know if your system
has a problem, or if your results just aren't up to your hopes/expectations.
For instance, we all know our prints don't look like glossy silver prints,
they look like something else. Are your prints just weak, or bad/wrong?

Either way, I'll have something out to you in tomorrows mail.

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Nicholas Hartmann 
<POLYGLOT@E...> wrote:

(snip)

> 
> Todd Flashner has offered to send one of _his_ prints so I can see 
it in
> the flesh, and I think that will be a better way of judging the 
process. If
> his results look wonderful, _then_ I can try to duplicate his 
procedure and
> see where the problem crops up.
> 

Nick,

I have a few of Todd's prints. If you aren't happy with them, then I 
would suspect that quad inkjet printing may not be what you want to 
use.

Most people who are moving to inkjet from smooth silver prints face a 
major adjustment. While the majority of the people on the list are 
working very hard and successfully with inkjet, there are going to be 
people who will be happier staying with silver or pursuing one the 
other digital approaches.

At least after seeing Todd's prints you will know whether you have a 
tech problem or if the medium just can't provide the results you are 
looking for.

Martin

All the posts about differences in systems highlight the fact that
evaluating this stuff is really difficult. I've got my system to the stage
that with Piezo/piezo/william turner, when I press print I get exactly what
is on the screen. It took a lot of time and paper/ink. When I started using
Museo I needed a different curve (slightly). Trying to evaluate different
inkset/drivers sounds like hell!

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] More quadtone experiences -- Black ink


> on 8/23/01 12:24 PM, Nicholas Hartmann wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the kind offer, but having you look at a scan of a step wedge
> > doesn't really address the problem, which is that _I_ don't like what
the
> > prints of my own pictures look like when I'm holding them in my hand.
>
> My guess is that you are getting too much separation in your deep tones,
> combined with the limits of Dmax on matte papers. I recommend you try
adding
> a fair amount of contrast to your image to "force" your blacks.
>
> If you haven't printed out a step wedge you should. You were implying
> posterization, and a wedge might reveal this better than a print.
>
> It's important for those who are trying to help you to know if your system
> has a problem, or if your results just aren't up to your
hopes/expectations.
> For instance, we all know our prints don't look like glossy silver prints,
> they look like something else. Are your prints just weak, or bad/wrong?
>
> Either way, I'll have something out to you in tomorrows mail.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>I have a few of Todd's prints. If you aren't happy with them, then I
>would suspect that quad inkjet printing may not be what you want to
>use.
>
>Most people who are moving to inkjet from smooth silver prints face a
>major adjustment. While the majority of the people on the list are
>working very hard and successfully with inkjet, there are going to be
>people who will be happier staying with silver or pursuing one the
>other digital approaches.
>
>At least after seeing Todd's prints you will know whether you have a
>tech problem or if the medium just can't provide the results you are
>looking for.

Martin -

You may very well be right. I think my problem is that while every approach
to inkjet output of photographs that I've tried so far -- black-only, MIS
VM, Piezo -- differs from (OK, falls short of) a real photograph, the
black-only method at least fails in a familiar way: the highlights can be
coarse, the tonal range gets short and/or funky. The mottling that I'm
seeing (I repeat, that -> I <- am seeing) with MIS VM is like nothing I've
ever seen in a photograph. (Bear in mind that I shoot 35mm only, and that I
quite like little black dots on a white background.) Maybe people who use
nothing but medium and large format haven't seen film grain in years, and
the particular tonal characteristics of MIS VM are unobjectionable -> TO
THEM.

In any case, I eagerly look forward to seeing Todd's prints. If they look
perfect to me, of course, then I'm back to figuring out what exactly I'm
doing wrong...

Thanks again for helping,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

> In any case, I eagerly look forward to seeing Todd's prints. If they look
> perfect to me, of course, then I'm back to figuring out what exactly I'm
> doing wrong...

Jeez guys, I'm just sticking a couple of work prints in an envelope, Don't
expect me to defend the process for us all. I don't even like my prints that
much...


Todd

Nick, the blacks appear to me, to be in this order, from blackest to least black, but they are very close.  No pigmented black is as deep as
Epson's.

1 Epson, Deepest
2 MIS Variable tone VM Black
3 Beta black/Enhanced black from Generations/Piezo Black:  Beta and Enhanced are the same ink, different names.
4 MIS Double Density Black/Standard MIS Black






Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> >Could you scan and e-mail to me a 21-step test file print done with the vm
> >inkset/workflow so that I can see what the problem looks like with you
> >system?  If you are interested, I'm sure people on the forum will mail some
> >test strips to you so that you can see if it's just your printer, the 1160
> >in general, or the entire approach that produces the results you find
> >objectionable.
>
> Paul -
>
> Thanks for the kind offer, but having you look at a scan of a step wedge
> doesn't really address the problem, which is that _I_ don't like what the
> prints of my own pictures look like when I'm holding them in my hand. If
> the difficulty lies in my particular 1160, I'm out of luck: I'm sure those
> printers are even more difficult to find than they were six weeks ago, when
> I paid 50% over list for the one I'm using. If it's the 1160 in general, I
> may as well just get a 1280, print with the K cartridge at 2880 dpi, and
> warn everyone to frame the prints facing _toward_ the wall so they don't
> fade... If it's the entire approach... but I'm already acting on that
> assumption.
>
> Todd Flashner has offered to send one of _his_ prints so I can see it in
> the flesh, and I think that will be a better way of judging the process. If
> his results look wonderful, _then_ I can try to duplicate his procedure and
> see where the problem crops up.
>
> >>... For black-only, I want the intensity of the
> >>Epson OEM black cartridge with better stability,
> >>at least behind glass or in a plastic sleeve in the dark.
>
> >The blacker they are, the more they fade and color shift.
>
> I was afraid of that...
>
> I think that the
> >Piezo and VM/FS blacks are the best combination. .... if they are
> >dark enough for you, the pigmented Pzo/VM/FS ink will give you about as good
> >a stability as there is.
> >One step blacker is the Generations black.  It may contain substantial dye,
> >however, and it does fade and color shift more than the Pzo/VM/FS black, in
> >my tests.  However, I'd assume it is still much more stable than the Epson
> >black.  After all, I think Generations inkset is up to "75 years" in its
> >fade testing results.
>
> The Piezo and VM/FS inks are not black enough for me, but I have one
> cartridge of the new Generations black (we're talking about the "Enhanced
> beta" version, right?) on order. And I'll be happy with 75 years of fade
> resistance for the prints.
>
> Thank you again for taking so much time over this.
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that digital prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater, and you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
printers could do in the darkroom. I really do think you have something wrong with your system. You are aware of the fact that about 5
percent of epson printers are dead on arrival, aren't you? You just may have a bad printer. I have had one that was dead when I opened the
box. It banded and nothing on earth I could do would get it to not band. The replacement was perfect.


Jerry



Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> >I have a few of Todd's prints. If you aren't happy with them, then I
> >would suspect that quad inkjet printing may not be what you want to
> >use.
> >
> >Most people who are moving to inkjet from smooth silver prints face a
> >major adjustment. While the majority of the people on the list are
> >working very hard and successfully with inkjet, there are going to be
> >people who will be happier staying with silver or pursuing one the
> >other digital approaches.
> >
> >At least after seeing Todd's prints you will know whether you have a
> >tech problem or if the medium just can't provide the results you are
> >looking for.
>
> Martin -
>
> You may very well be right. I think my problem is that while every approach
> to inkjet output of photographs that I've tried so far -- black-only, MIS
> VM, Piezo -- differs from (OK, falls short of) a real photograph, the
> black-only method at least fails in a familiar way: the highlights can be
> coarse, the tonal range gets short and/or funky. The mottling that I'm
> seeing (I repeat, that -> I <- am seeing) with MIS VM is like nothing I've
> ever seen in a photograph. (Bear in mind that I shoot 35mm only, and that I
> quite like little black dots on a white background.) Maybe people who use
> nothing but medium and large format haven't seen film grain in years, and
> the particular tonal characteristics of MIS VM are unobjectionable -> TO
> THEM.
>
> In any case, I eagerly look forward to seeing Todd's prints. If they look
> perfect to me, of course, then I'm back to figuring out what exactly I'm
> doing wrong...
>
> Thanks again for helping,
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>Nick, the blacks appear to me, to be in this order, from blackest to least
>black, but they are very close.  No pigmented black is as deep as
>Epson's.
>
>1 Epson, Deepest
>2 MIS Variable tone VM Black
>3 Beta black/Enhanced black from Generations/Piezo Black:  Beta and
>Enhanced are the same ink, different names.
>4 MIS Double Density Black/Standard MIS Black

Thanks, Jerry. I've heard opinions that the Generations beta is the
blackest of the bunch, but I haven't tested it yet. The Epson black is
certainly good, but fading/shifting then becomes a concern. I find the MIS
VM black to be quite weak.

And thanks for the tip on the Epson printer profiles: most at the top
through least at the bottom certainly seems logical...

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

>Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that
>digital prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
>sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater,
>and you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
>printers could do in the darkroom. I really do think you have something
>wrong with your system.

Our opinions on digital vs. silver obviously differ fundamentally.

I am interested in digital printing not because I think it can outdo or
even equal silver, but because many of my pictures are taken specifically
in order to send prints to my friends and family. My work and my life allow
me one long afternoon a week in the darkroom, during which time I can make
maybe a dozen RC prints. Making those prints involves mixing chemicals,
making test strips, processing, washing and drying prints, then taking them
home and spotting them. I also need to pay rent for the darkroom. If I can
convert that portion of my photographic activity into a digital context, I
can spend an hour or so every evening scanning, Photoshopping, and printing
and come up with prints that are within, say, 90% of the quality of what I
can do on RC paper. I get to do all that sitting down, at my leisure, in a
house whose mortgage I'm paying off anyway, in a room with a better sound
system. The people who receive the prints will probably stick them in a
frame, and from a couple of feet away they will see only the picture, not
the print. We have communicated with one another, which is the point.

But if I ever get the opportunity to exhibit my pictures, I will be back in
the darkroom making 11x14 selenium-toned fiber-base gelatine silver prints,
because they are the only medium which appropriately conveys what I have on
my negatives. This is an aesthetic judgment I am making about my own
pictures; your point of view is obviously different. You may also be
judging digital output on the basis of large-format negatives, great big
printers, and a procedure that is beyond my reach in terms of both money
and complexity.

You are aware of the fact that about 5
>percent of epson printers are dead on arrival, aren't you? You just may
>have a bad printer. I have had one that was dead when I opened the
>box. It banded and nothing on earth I could do would get it to not band.
>The replacement was perfect.

The printer gave perfect nozzle checks and accurate head alignments right
out of the box with the Epson OEM inks. After I installed the hand-filled
MIS cartridges, a few cleaning cycles and an overnight rest got me right
back to perfect nozzle checks. The printer is not banding.

Let's leave it that I'm not thrilled with how MIS VM works for me with my
equipment (selected with some care), materials, and available time and
energy. For me, all digital output is an imperfect representation of the
negative; I don't care for the particular imperfection of the VM inkset,
and would rather tolerate the different kinds of imperfection implicit in
black-only output or Piezo.

-- Nick


NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

> Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that digital
> prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
> sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater, and
> you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
> printers could do in the darkroom.


Superior to Brett Weston's prints?

Todd

This debate will continue to surface but, to a large extent, I don't 
believe it has an answer except to the individual. The mediums are 
different. It is like comparing water color to tempera. Each has its 
advantages, each has its drawbacks. By choosing to work in one rather 
than the other you make compromises.

You also have to keep in mind that it is not just a digital vs. 
analog choice. Look at Phil Bard's post today. It is possible to have 
all the advantages of Photoshop and still make a silver or platinum 
print. It is just not as easy as or convenient as inkjet.

Martin Wesley

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
wrote:
> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> > Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think 
that digital
> > prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
> > sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is 
greater, and

> > you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
> > printers could do in the darkroom.
> 
> 
> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
> 
> Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Nicholas Hartmann 
<POLYGLOT@E...> wrote:
 
(snip)
> 
> Our opinions on digital vs. silver obviously differ fundamentally.
> 
> I am interested in digital printing not because I think it can 
outdo or
> even equal silver, but because many of my pictures are taken 
specifically
> in order to send prints to my friends and family. My work and my 
life allow
> me one long afternoon a week in the darkroom, during which time I 
can make
> maybe a dozen RC prints. Making those prints involves mixing 
chemicals,
> making test strips, processing, washing and drying prints, then 
taking them
> home and spotting them. I also need to pay rent for the darkroom. 
If I can
> convert that portion of my photographic activity into a digital 
context, I
> can spend an hour or so every evening scanning, Photoshopping, and 
printing
> and come up with prints that are within, say, 90% of the quality of 
what I
> can do on RC paper. I get to do all that sitting down, at my 
leisure, in a
> house whose mortgage I'm paying off anyway, in a room with a better 
sound
> system. The people who receive the prints will probably stick them 
in a
> frame, and from a couple of feet away they will see only the 
picture, not
> the print. We have communicated with one another, which is the 
point.

Nick,

You are exactly at the point I was last fall. Only I had reached the 
point where, due to time constraints, I didn't even have that one 
afternoon a week. I wasn't making any prints at all.

Piezo or inkjet printing simply isn't a substitute for silver but it 
is an excellent medium for making B&W prints. I look at what I am 
doing now as a new body of work, seperate from my silver printing. 
Someday I will have more time, or the technology will advance, and I 
will be making silver prints again. But if I had unlimited time right 
now, I would be doing both and more besides.

I would also strongly recommend that you look at the dye based 
Spectratone Quad inks from Lincoln Inks. If you are working on RC 
paper you might be very pleased with their inks on the Ilford RC 
inkjet paper.

http://www.lincolninks.com/ 

Check out the earlier posts on this and contact them for a sample 
print.

Martin Wesley

(snip)

Have you done a dip and dunk test with a small strip of paper with the VM black ink? I find it to be the blackest of all pigmented inks.
Possibly you have a mislabeled bottle.

Jerry

Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> >Nick, the blacks appear to me, to be in this order, from blackest to least
> >black, but they are very close.  No pigmented black is as deep as
> >Epson's.
> >
> >1 Epson, Deepest
> >2 MIS Variable tone VM Black
> >3 Beta black/Enhanced black from Generations/Piezo Black:  Beta and
> >Enhanced are the same ink, different names.
> >4 MIS Double Density Black/Standard MIS Black
>
> Thanks, Jerry. I've heard opinions that the Generations beta is the
> blackest of the bunch, but I haven't tested it yet. The Epson black is
> certainly good, but fading/shifting then becomes a concern. I find the MIS
> VM black to be quite weak.
>
> And thanks for the tip on the Epson printer profiles: most at the top
> through least at the bottom certainly seems logical...
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

yes. (assuming Bret Weston prints them with a quad system.). He might not be able to do so, as he's assumed room temperature. :)


jerry

Todd Flashner wrote:

> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
>
> > Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that digital
> > prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
> > sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater, and
> > you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
> > printers could do in the darkroom.
>
> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
>
> Todd
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Our opinions on digital vs. silver obviously differ fundamentally.
>
> <snip>

> But if I ever get the opportunity to exhibit my pictures, I will be back in
> the darkroom making 11x14 selenium-toned fiber-base gelatine silver prints,
> because they are the only medium which appropriately conveys what I have on
> my negatives. This is an aesthetic judgment I am making about my own
> pictures; your point of view is obviously different. You may also be
> judging digital output on the basis of large-format negatives, great big
> printers, and a procedure that is beyond my reach in terms of both money
> and complexity.
> <snip>

Dear Nick,
While I certainly don't know what the problem is that does not allow you to perfectly represent your images
digitally, I still think that there is a problem in your system *somewhere*.  I do not believe that one cannot
get a facsimile of your photo prints on an inkjet output.

I'm also not saying that your problems are imagined.  I feel sorry for you, having been there ourselves.  I
guess that I want to stress that I hope you don't throw the baby out with the bath water on this.  There is
absolutely no reason why you should not be able to get what you are asking for in your output.  It is not an
inherent flaw in inkjet technology, but a localized one in your system.

We had a problem for 10 months, in which we could not *consistently* get a good print in Photoshop on our
2000P.  The problem was that when printing via Photoshop, we could not achieve a good black most times (but
not always) in our color output.  When we did a work around via Quark, it printed very well...But it was time
consuming and stupid (it also took us 8 month to figure this out....can you imagine the time and materials we
wasted?!!). Our trouble shooting included having Epson replace our 2000P.   It was *very* frustrating.  People
kept on telling us that we were doing something wrong, and we weren't. Both Adobe and Epson blamed each other,
and we were caught in the middle.  Finally someone (from the colorsync list at Abobe) privately e-mailed us,
and explained how it had to be Epson's problem.  Our problem ended up being a conflict between Photoshop and
the Epson 'space' softwares.  And the 'fix' was to simply set the 'space' in the printer's dialogue box to the
*incorrect* setting, and the problem vanished.

It was frustrating, stupid, and not logical.  Nobody can explain why this worked, but it did.  We had to be
very insistent with Epson, and went through 3 levels of tech people before one of them (after a lot checking
of our settings, reinstalling lots of 'stuff', etc.) came up with the solution.

So, hang in there.  Perhaps you can try to have someone else output one of your files to see if the problem
lies within your printer?  We have a 2000P, and use Epson's ink, but if you would like to e-mail me one of
your files , I would be happy to try outputting it on our machine.  On the other hand, there should be someone
on this list who has a similar setup, who might also volunteer.

Let me know, OK?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

> > Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that digital
> > prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
> > sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater, and
> > you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
> > printers could do in the darkroom.
>
>
> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?

I would agree that inkjet prints (and the whole digital system), in the right hands would be better 'on
average' than *anyone's* silver printing.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

Jerry, I happen to have an inside track on the Brooklyn Bridge if your in
the market for one. ;-)

Todd

> yes. (assuming Bret Weston prints them with a quad system.). He might not be
> able to do so, as he's assumed room temperature. :)
>  
> jerry

> 
>> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
>> 
>>> Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that digital
>>> prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
>>> sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater, and
>>> you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
>>> printers could do in the darkroom.
>> 
>> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
>> 
>> Todd
>>

>Piezo or inkjet printing simply isn't a substitute for silver but it
>is an excellent medium for making B&W prints. I look at what I am
>doing now as a new body of work, seperate from my silver printing.
>Someday I will have more time, or the technology will advance, and I
>will be making silver prints again. But if I had unlimited time right
>now, I would be doing both and more besides.

Martin -

I'm not planning on giving up the darkroom just yet. But I agree that
inkjet output is qualitatively different: last night I scanned and printed
a negative of which I already had RC and fiber prints, and the amount of
detail and tonal differentiation that can be pulled out using even a 2820
ppi scanner is quite amazing. Having figured out (finally) how to match the
monitor image to the printed output, I was then able to make a print (using
the black cartridge only) that revealed aspects of the negative I had been
completely unable to deal with in the darkroom. This indicates mostly that
I have a lot to learn about gelatine silver printing!

>I would also strongly recommend that you look at the dye based
>Spectratone Quad inks from Lincoln Inks. If you are working on RC
>paper you might be very pleased with their inks on the Ilford RC
>inkjet paper.

I printed on RC because it was relatively fast and convenient. I don't
actually like the look of it; and the MIS VM black (of which I now have a
nice big bottle) actually seems to work fine now that the monitor is set up
correctly. I also have a bottle of MIS double-density black, and a
cartridge of Generations enhanced beta is on its way; in due course I will
try out all of them, although I suspect the differences will be minor. My
next task is to see whether any other paper besides Epson HWM is worth
keeping in stock...

Given the number of electrons expended on this whole MIS VM vs. black-only
business, I'd be happy to send you a sample print done with the black
cartridge, so you can see what _I_ consider good-looking inkjet output.
You're entirely at liberty to think it's nasty, of course...

Best regards,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

>Have you done a dip and dunk test with a small strip of paper with the VM
>black ink? I find it to be the blackest of all pigmented inks.
>Possibly you have a mislabeled bottle.

Not dip and dunk, but I did take a paintbrush and apply both the VM black
and the double-density black to the same sheet of paper. They looked
identical, and acceptably black. It turns out (my apologies to MIS and
anyone else offended by my previously low opinion of their black ink) that
the MIS VM black actually works quite nicely; I finally figured out last
night how to match my monitor image properly to the printer output <heel of
hand slapping forehead>, and now the blacks look fine. I'll still try the
Generations black when the cartridge arrives.

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

>While I certainly don't know what the problem is that does not allow you
>to perfectly represent your images
>digitally, I still think that there is a problem in your system
>*somewhere*.  I do not believe that one cannot
>get a facsimile of your photo prints on an inkjet output.

Harvey -

I don't believe there is any such thing as a "perfect representation" of an
image in any medium; every print is an interpretation. I'm also not looking
for a "facsimile" of my silver prints by way of an inkjet printer. I _am_
looking for a way of creating from my negatives a pleasing, believable
print that does not get in the way of appreciating the picture. I believe
that for the moment, in my circumstances, with my equipment and materials
and procedures, and given my experiences and prejudices, the MIS VM method
is not appropriate. Given that simply using the black cartridge produces
results that -> FOR ME <- come very close to what I want to achieve, I see
little reason to spend any more of other people's time trying to optimize
something that I probably would not care for even if it were optimum.
Different strokes...

>So, hang in there.  Perhaps you can try to have someone else output one of
>your files to see if the problem
>lies within your printer?  We have a 2000P, and use Epson's ink, but if
>you would like to e-mail me one of
>your files , I would be happy to try outputting it on our machine.  On the
>other hand, there should be someone
>on this list who has a similar setup, who might also volunteer.

Thank you. Another list participant has already suggested this, and I
believe we will end up simply exchanging prints: he will show me what he
can do with MIS VM and the Roark curves, and I will show him what I
consider to be nice-looking output with the black cartridge. We will
probably be mutually and politely mystified, and happily go back to doing
things our own way.

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Nicholas Hartmann 
<POLYGLOT@E...> wrote:
(snip)

> Martin -
> 
> I'm not planning on giving up the darkroom just yet. But I agree 
that
> inkjet output is qualitatively different: last night I scanned and 
printed
> a negative of which I already had RC and fiber prints, and the 
amount of
> detail and tonal differentiation that can be pulled out using even 
a 2820
> ppi scanner is quite amazing. Having figured out (finally) how to 
match the
> monitor image to the printed output, I was then able to make a 
print (using
> the black cartridge only) that revealed aspects of the negative I 
had been
> completely unable to deal with in the darkroom. This indicates 
mostly that
> I have a lot to learn about gelatine silver printing!

Don't give up on the darkroom work.

There is always a more to learn. I would suggest that you go back to 
yesterdays thread from Phil Bard and follow the link to his page that 
shows an image after scanning, silver print enlargement, digital neg, 
etc. I think that at the scan stage of digital you can get more 
information off the negative than you can by enlarging. There is 
quite a bit of loss going from the negative through the lens and onto 
paper. Contact printing onto silver is reported to hold 80 to 100 
lines per mm but enlarging drops that to 20. The point is that there 
is good reason to believe that digital does indeed get more out of 
your negs. Getting that onto a piece of paper is another story.

You can also use digital to make 1:1 transparency masks to sandwich 
with your neg in the enlarger. Another way to combine digital and 
traditional methods.

> 
(snip)
> 
> Given the number of electrons expended on this whole MIS VM vs. 
black-only
> business, I'd be happy to send you a sample print done with the 
black
> cartridge, so you can see what _I_ consider good-looking inkjet 
output.
> You're entirely at liberty to think it's nasty, of course...

I would like to see what you are doing. As the description of the 
groups says it is about ALL methods for getting a B&W print from a 
digital file. I will e-mail my address you off list. If you want to 
send me a copy of your file, I can print it out for you on my 1200 
Piezo system for comparison.

One last thing I have failed to mention in spite of all the time I 
put into it. If you want an air-dried silver look from you inkjet 
prints you can achieve it by varnishing the prints. It takes practice 
but the results are very amazing.

Martin Wesley

Martin, Would you describe the workflow process for this, please.
Tnx,  Bill

>One last thing I have failed to mention in spite of all the time I
put into it. If you want an air-dried silver look from you inkjet
prints you can achieve it by varnishing the prints. It takes practice
but the results are very amazing.

Martin Wesley

Bill,

Ah! Glad you asked. Go to the group homepage. Go to the "Files" 
section and open the folder "Coating Inkjet Prints". There you will 
find 4 long and posts describing what I have done so far. This is a 
work in progress with many things yet to be tried.

Basically I am going back to what photographers did before clay 
coated silver gelatin papers became available and varnishing was a 
common practice. I am simply applying varnish to the surface of 
PiezoBW prints with a brush. Easier said than done!

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., wparsons@e... wrote:
> 
> Martin, Would you describe the workflow process for this, please.
> Tnx,  Bill
> 
> >One last thing I have failed to mention in spite of all the time I
> put into it. If you want an air-dried silver look from you inkjet
> prints you can achieve it by varnishing the prints. It takes 
practice

> but the results are very amazing.
> 
> Martin Wesley

I think that at the scan stage of digital you can get more
>information off the negative than you can by enlarging.

Sure looks that way: it's not so much any gain in resolution, it's the
scanner's ability to map the negative's entire tonal range exactly onto a
gamut from paper white to flat black. That right there is almost impossible
in the darkroom. And then the opportunity to go in and tone down a single
distracting highlight, or lighten up one side of a face, etc., etc.,
_really_ gets interesting!

>I would like to see what you are doing. As the description of the
>groups says it is about ALL methods for getting a B&W print from a
>digital file. I will e-mail my address you off list. If you want to
>send me a copy of your file, I can print it out for you on my 1200
>Piezo system for comparison.

I'll be happy to send a print; I have your address from your other message.
No need to print out anything for me: I've decided there are so many
variables in this undertaking that it may be physically impossible for
anyone to absolutely duplicate anyone else's results. This is as it should
be: no two painters or violinists or dancers give exactly the same
interpretation, so why should we, especially when we are each "performing"
our own compositions!

>One last thing I have failed to mention in spite of all the time I
>put into it. If you want an air-dried silver look from you inkjet
>prints you can achieve it by varnishing the prints. It takes practice
>but the results are very amazing.

I overheard some of the discussions about that on the Piezo list (before I
unsubscribed recently for lack of time). I used to be resigned to the fact
that I couldn't duplicate the air-dried glossy look using inkjet; now I
think I welcome it. A door has opened just a crack and I'm seeing quite
extraordinary possibilities for interpreting my negatives; there will be
steps backward, no doubt, but lots more forward. Nevertheless, the
varnishing idea is certainly intriguing; I would love to see results in the
"flesh" some day.

Best,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

Dear Nicholas,

> I don't believe there is any such thing as a "perfect representation" of an
> image in any medium; every print is an interpretation. I'm also not looking
> for a "facsimile" of my silver prints by way of an inkjet printer.

Perhaps my written word has failed me.  I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.  All I was trying
to get across was that you should be able to get what you want from digital output, and that from what you had
said, it sounded like you  *were*, in fact, trying to repeat your silver print experience in digital form.  I
was not trying to make any other claims.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography



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

Dear Nicholas,

> I don't believe there is any such thing as a "perfect representation" of an
> image in any medium; every print is an interpretation. I'm also not looking
> for a "facsimile" of my silver prints by way of an inkjet printer.

Perhaps my written word has failed me.  I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.  All I was trying
to get across was that you should be able to get what you want from digital output, and that from what you had
said, it sounded like you  *were*, in fact, trying to repeat your silver print experience in digital form.  I
was not trying to make any other claims.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography




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

You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?

Jerry







Todd Flashner wrote:

> Jerry, I happen to have an inside track on the Brooklyn Bridge if your in
> the market for one. ;-)
>
>
>
> > yes. (assuming Bret Weston prints them with a quad system.). He might not be
> > able to do so, as he's assumed room temperature. :)
> >
> > jerry
>
> >
> >> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that digital
> >>> prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
> >>> sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater, and
> >>> you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
> >>> printers could do in the darkroom.
> >>
> >> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

aHAH!

I will be counting the days when you finally agree that Digital inkjet prints can be better than a darkroom print.  In fact, almost always
are better.

Jerry

Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> >Have you done a dip and dunk test with a small strip of paper with the VM
> >black ink? I find it to be the blackest of all pigmented inks.
> >Possibly you have a mislabeled bottle.
>
> Not dip and dunk, but I did take a paintbrush and apply both the VM black
> and the double-density black to the same sheet of paper. They looked
> identical, and acceptably black. It turns out (my apologies to MIS and
> anyone else offended by my previously low opinion of their black ink) that
> the MIS VM black actually works quite nicely; I finally figured out last
> night how to match my monitor image properly to the printer output <heel of
> hand slapping forehead>, and now the blacks look fine. I'll still try the
> Generations black when the cartridge arrives.
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>I will be counting the days when you finally agree that Digital inkjet
>prints can be better than a darkroom print.  In fact, almost always
>are better.

Keep counting. It's not a matter of "better"; they're always just going to
be different. A painting isn't better than an etching; bronze isn't better
than marble; a sonata isn't better than a symphony; chocolate isn't better
than... well, maybe it is. I'm not into rankings here: I'm discovering
something new and different, and in time I may even prefer it to my old
favorites. Even if I do, that won't make it "better."

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

A Sonata CAN be better than a Symphony.  Beethoven's Appassionata for example!



Jerry





Nicholas Hartmann wrote:

> >I will be counting the days when you finally agree that Digital inkjet
> >prints can be better than a darkroom print.  In fact, almost always
> >are better.
>
> Keep counting. It's not a matter of "better"; they're always just going to
> be different. A painting isn't better than an etching; bronze isn't better
> than marble; a sonata isn't better than a symphony; chocolate isn't better
> than... well, maybe it is. I'm not into rankings here: I'm discovering
> something new and different, and in time I may even prefer it to my old
> favorites. Even if I do, that won't make it "better."
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?

Jerry

I don't think they are "superior to any darkroom print". Certain images are
served better by one medium over the other. A blanket statement of one
process being superior to the other isn't true for either silver of carbon
quad/hex. I'm certainly capable of making poor prints in either medium which
are exceeded by the other, and I don't know that we've yet seen the *best*
either medium is capable of.

I brought up Brett Weston because so much of his imagery is based on
abstractions that I think were formulated on the basis of what he could get
out of the materials of his day. I think if he were printing on matte papers
(which he could have done at that time, if he felt it would serve his art),
he'd have shot differently, and we'd be discussing a different body of work
from him.

This is a big topic, which I'd love to flush out some time, but I've a busy
weekend ahead, now is not it.

In short I'd say I have some images which work better in silver, and others
look better in carbon. As I look to the future I expect digi/carbon to
improve further than silver, and my opinion may be different at that time,
but presently I have too many images that need silver, in order to be what I
want them to be.

Todd

> You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd Flashner wrote:
> 
>> Jerry, I happen to have an inside track on the Brooklyn Bridge if your in
>> the market for one. ;-)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> yes. (assuming Bret Weston prints them with a quad system.). He might not be
>>> able to do so, as he's assumed room temperature. :)
>>> 
>>> jerry
>> 
>>> 
>>>> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that
>>>>> digital
>>>>> prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
>>>>> sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater,
>>>>> and
>>>>> you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
>>>>> printers could do in the darkroom.
>>>> 
>>>> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
>>>> 
>>>> Todd
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

You could say air dried glossy more or less IS the preferred matte surface in Silver printing. It isn't glossy, and it isn't matte, some
sort of beautiful hybrid that I have NEVER seen in Digital. Wonder if we ever will?


Jerry


Todd Flashner wrote:

> > You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?
>
> Jerry
>
> I don't think they are "superior to any darkroom print". Certain images are
> served better by one medium over the other. A blanket statement of one
> process being superior to the other isn't true for either silver of carbon
> quad/hex. I'm certainly capable of making poor prints in either medium which
> are exceeded by the other, and I don't know that we've yet seen the *best*
> either medium is capable of.
>
> I brought up Brett Weston because so much of his imagery is based on
> abstractions that I think were formulated on the basis of what he could get
> out of the materials of his day. I think if he were printing on matte papers
> (which he could have done at that time, if he felt it would serve his art),
> he'd have shot differently, and we'd be discussing a different body of work
> from him.
>
> This is a big topic, which I'd love to flush out some time, but I've a busy
> weekend ahead, now is not it.
>
> In short I'd say I have some images which work better in silver, and others
> look better in carbon. As I look to the future I expect digi/carbon to
> improve further than silver, and my opinion may be different at that time,
> but presently I have too many images that need silver, in order to be what I
> want them to be.
>
> Todd
>
> > You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Todd Flashner wrote:
> >
> >> Jerry, I happen to have an inside track on the Brooklyn Bridge if your in
> >> the market for one. ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> yes. (assuming Bret Weston prints them with a quad system.). He might not be
> >>> able to do so, as he's assumed room temperature. :)
> >>>
> >>> jerry
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that
> >>>>> digital
> >>>>> prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
> >>>>> sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater,
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
> >>>>> printers could do in the darkroom.
> >>>>
> >>>> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Isn't Cone Glossy air-dried? How does it compare to fibre?

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: 25 August 2001 00:41
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] More quadtone experiences -- Black ink
> 
> 
> You could say air dried glossy more or less IS the preferred 
> matte surface in Silver printing. It isn't glossy, and it isn't 
> matte, some
> sort of beautiful hybrid that I have NEVER seen in Digital. 
> Wonder if we ever will?
> 
> 
> Jerry

> Dear Nick,
> While I certainly don't know what the problem is that does not allow you to perfectly represent your images
> digitally, I still think that there is a problem in your system *somewhere*.  I do not believe that one cannot
> get a facsimile of your photo prints on an inkjet output.

After spending quite some time trying to print images with pronounced grain characteristics, I have to agree with Nick that 
the standard separation methods do not work well with them.
He could print step wedges 'til we have a democrat in the White House to verify the workflow and still his prints would not 
convey the right feel, and in fact, look posterized in some parts of the scale with every standard workflow I've tried.
Seeing John Brownlow's prints would be interesting.
No matter how perfected a workflow may be, seems it still may not be right for everything or everyone.
The Spectratones could very well be perfect for this, assuming there is an apropriate media.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Nij" <nigel@n...> wrote:
> Isn't Cone Glossy air-dried? How does it compare to fibre?
> 
> Nij

I'm not sure, but I don't think Jon air-dries to a gloss. If you throw him in a microwave, possibly.
I am sure, though, that he could never take the place of a good amount of fibre in your diet.
Tyler


hey, it's Friday

Well there have always been silver papers that are far more matte than air
dried glossy. However, many phenomenal printers rejected them, at least for
much of their work. Lets talk again when we have that same option.

Todd

PS, My esthetic is changing the longer I work the carbon medium, the more
fine prints I see from others, and the more I use better papers (I'm liking
Orwell and LPM best right now). But I doubt I'll ever be willing to give up
that air dried gloss option.

I so often hear about the better separation one gets in the blacks/darks
with digital. Perhaps; but too often they are dry, burnt, blacks. They are
dark, but dead. They don't have the life, the vigor, the vitality, of my
silver blacks. Many images take on a romantic quality with such dry blacks -
I in no way denigrate them, My wording is too harsh, but I think you know
what I mean. They just don't serve all images. One print I'm working on now
is a composition which includes many backlit leaves. I can push the contrast
to soot and chalk and still not get vitality out of them. I can get 200
tones of gray in them, but they don't pulse with life. Yet on the same table
lies a sloppy silver work print that pulses with life. I doubt even Dr.
Frankenstein could give a carbon print such energy.

But I do think the day will come.

> You could say air dried glossy more or less IS the preferred matte surface in
> Silver printing. It isn't glossy, and it isn't matte, some
> sort of beautiful hybrid that I have NEVER seen in Digital. Wonder if we ever
> will?
> 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> Todd Flashner wrote:
> 
>>> You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> I don't think they are "superior to any darkroom print". Certain images are
>> served better by one medium over the other. A blanket statement of one
>> process being superior to the other isn't true for either silver of carbon
>> quad/hex. I'm certainly capable of making poor prints in either medium which
>> are exceeded by the other, and I don't know that we've yet seen the *best*
>> either medium is capable of.
>> 
>> I brought up Brett Weston because so much of his imagery is based on
>> abstractions that I think were formulated on the basis of what he could get
>> out of the materials of his day. I think if he were printing on matte papers
>> (which he could have done at that time, if he felt it would serve his art),
>> he'd have shot differently, and we'd be discussing a different body of work
>> from him.
>> 
>> This is a big topic, which I'd love to flush out some time, but I've a busy
>> weekend ahead, now is not it.
>> 
>> In short I'd say I have some images which work better in silver, and others
>> look better in carbon. As I look to the future I expect digi/carbon to
>> improve further than silver, and my opinion may be different at that time,
>> but presently I have too many images that need silver, in order to be what I
>> want them to be.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>>> You DON'T think Inkjet prints are better than darkroom prints?
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Todd Flashner wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Jerry, I happen to have an inside track on the Brooklyn Bridge if your in
>>>> the market for one. ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> yes. (assuming Bret Weston prints them with a quad system.). He might not
>>>>> be
>>>>> able to do so, as he's assumed room temperature. :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> jerry
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> on 8/23/01 3:46 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nick, I'm about as picky a person as you will ever see. I think that
>>>>>>> digital
>>>>>>> prints are superior in every way to darkroom prints. They are
>>>>>>> sharper, the shadow detail is greater, the highlight detail is greater,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> you can do things in photoshop not even the worlds greatest
>>>>>>> printers could do in the darkroom.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Superior to Brett Weston's prints?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Todd
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

> After spending quite some time trying to print images with pronounced grain
> characteristics, I have to agree with Nick that
> the standard separation methods do not work well with them.
> He could print step wedges 'til we have a democrat in the White House to
> verify the workflow and still his prints would not
> convey the right feel, and in fact, look posterized in some parts of the scale
> with every standard workflow I've tried.


I'm no John Brownlow, but I'll take the challenge using Roark's method.

Send me your address.
Todd

>> After spending quite some time trying to print images with pronounced grain
>> characteristics, I have to agree with Nick that
>> the standard separation methods do not work well with them.
>> He could print step wedges 'til we have a democrat in the White House to
>> verify the workflow and still his prints would not
>> convey the right feel, and in fact, look posterized in some parts of the
>> scale
>> with every standard workflow I've tried.
> 
> 
> I'm no John Brownlow, but I'll take the challenge using Roark's method.
> 
> Send me your address.
> Todd
> 

PS, I know you primarily use a 3000. Is it possible that is limiting what
you can do in this regard? Have you tried a printer that makes finer dots?

Todd

Haven't seen it.

Jerry


Nij wrote:

> Isn't Cone Glossy air-dried? How does it compare to fibre?
>
> Nij
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> > Sent: 25 August 2001 00:41
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] More quadtone experiences -- Black ink
> >
> >
> > You could say air dried glossy more or less IS the preferred
> > matte surface in Silver printing. It isn't glossy, and it isn't
> > matte, some
> > sort of beautiful hybrid that I have NEVER seen in Digital.
> > Wonder if we ever will?
> >
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I wonder if he could be confusing the dot pattern of the 3000 for film grain? It looks just like it.

Jerry

In any case, If he's trying to print a grainy print on a 3000 printer, I would certainly expect his grain pattern and the printers dot
pattern would cause an undesireable effect, sort of like a mo\ufffdre pattern.





Todd Flashner wrote:

>
> >> After spending quite some time trying to print images with pronounced grain
> >> characteristics, I have to agree with Nick that
> >> the standard separation methods do not work well with them.
> >> He could print step wedges 'til we have a democrat in the White House to
> >> verify the workflow and still his prints would not
> >> convey the right feel, and in fact, look posterized in some parts of the
> >> scale
> >> with every standard workflow I've tried.
> >
> >
> > I'm no John Brownlow, but I'll take the challenge using Roark's method.
> >
> > Send me your address.
> > Todd
> >
>
> PS, I know you primarily use a 3000. Is it possible that is limiting what
> you can do in this regard? Have you tried a printer that makes finer dots?
>
> Todd
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> I wonder if he could be confusing the dot pattern of the 3000 for
film grain? It looks just like it.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> In any case, If he's trying to print a grainy print on a 3000
printer, I would certainly expect his grain pattern and the printers
dot
> pattern would cause an undesireable effect, sort of like a moîre
pattern.
> 
Yea right, that's just gotta be it Jerry. I'm sure "he" can't tell
the difference between film grain and the 3000 dot pattern, or 
recognize a moîre pattern.
By the way, good quad workflows on a 3000 do not result in remotely
visible dots.
I found the whole dilemma interesting, and exploring different
workflows to address different print esthetcs interesting, 
and I thought this was the list for that.
WasI lost?
Tyler

Depends on his skill level. the 3000 dot pattern on certain images looks much like film grain, Depends on the inks, driver, etc. etc.

I said "Like" a moire pattern, not a moire pattern. Meaning it can look quite grainy, but not natural.
J

>
> Yea right, that's just gotta be it Jerry. I'm sure "he" can't tell
> the difference between film grain and the 3000 dot pattern, or
> recognize a mo\ufffdre pattern.

>I wonder if he could be confusing the dot pattern of the 3000 for film
>grain? It looks just like it.

>In any case, If he's trying to print a grainy print on a 3000 printer, I
>would certainly expect his grain pattern and the printers dot
>pattern would cause an undesireable effect, sort of like a moîre pattern.

If "he" means me, then no, I'm not confusing anything. I know the
difference between a dot pattern and film grain and a moiré pattern.

My problem is not dots but lack of dots: in some circumstances and with
some images -- including the one that I happened to use to test out the MIS
VM quad system -- areas that should exhibit a RANGE of tones exhibit only a
SINGLE tone which then transitions abruptly into ANOTHER tone. As I've
described elsewhere, this doesn't always happen; but it happened to me in
spades and I don't like it. I've taken steps to deal with the problem,
namely switching over to using only black ink, a procedure that suits me
better in any case because of its logistical and aesthetic simplicity.

And anyway, I'm using an 1160.

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@execpc.com

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

>After spending quite some time trying to print images with pronounced
>grain characteristics, I have to agree with Nick that
>the standard separation methods do not work well with them.
>He could print step wedges 'til we have a democrat in the White House to
>verify the workflow and still his prints would not
>convey the right feel, and in fact, look posterized in some parts of the
>scale with every standard workflow I've tried.

THANK YOU!

On that same subject:

Spent another weekend futzing around with inks and papers, including a
last-ditch effort to get good results out of the MIS VM quad set with the
Roark curves before the cartridge runs dry. The image I tried was very
different from the one on which I have been getting such unsatisfactory
results, and the results were also very different:

Image 1 (poor results):
Taken outdoors in bright sunlight, angled slightly downward on a man
wearing a short-sleeved shirt against a background of marsh vegetation; a
piece of timber boardwalk cuts across one corner. There are lots of areas
of fairly even tone: cap, shirt, pants, forearm, face in partial shadow,
boardwalk. All those areas look "posterized."

Image 2 ( excellent results):
Taken in Italy, standing in shadow and looking down a street through an
archway to a brighter area in the distance. Almost every surface is
rough-cut stone or brick, i.e. highly articulated textures. The results are
outstanding: lovely smooth tonality with just a hint of mottling in the few
small areas of even tone.

Every other parameter for these two images was the same: scanned at 2820
ppi, 16-bit; minimally manipulated in Photoshop (no combing on the
histograms); same inks, same paper (Epson HWM).

This suggests that many of you who could not believe I was having such
trouble with the VM quads are taking pictures much like Image 2, with lots
of articulation and texture. The VM system is no doubt working very nicely
for you, since any posterizing in such images appears to be negligible.
Unfortunately, I take lots of Image 1-type pictures, so on a regular basis,
the VM system is not the right one for me.

On the bright side, I am getting better and better results using only the K
cartridge filled with the MIS VM black ink. After considerable labor
involving an image that is half a gradient and half a 21-step wedge, I have
standardized my monitor settings and worked out a transfer function which
produces an image on paper that, to my eye, looks well within ballpark
range of what's on screen. Yes, there are dots in the highest of
highlights; yes, the deepest blacks get a bit gritty. But they're nice and
deep; and the tonal scale looks better than any RC print I was ever able to
make; and I'm finding some nice papers (see "Epson 1160 for adoption"
message). Another few weeks of this and I might have everything down to a
standard procedure again with some expectation of consistent results...

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

Gentlemen -

When I first started investigating this whole digital-printing procedure, I
soon became persuaded that the Epson 1160 printer was the one to have. It
proved difficult to find one, so I ended up reserving a couple of them, one
refurbished (through RefurbDepot) and the other new (from an outfit that
had bought up a bunch of them). The two of them became available on the
same day, and I ended up buying both.

The new one is working fine, happily generating nice prints using only the
black cartridge (despite assurances from some list members that this is
impossible). No banding, no nozzle clogging, no paper feed problems, no
nothin' (knock on wood).

The other one, however, is the one I unpacked first, and used right at the
beginning to try out the Piezo BW software and inks. This may be
coincidence, but: from the moment I replaced the OEM Epson inks, following
a perfect nozzle check, with the Piezo inks, I could never get the nozzles
completely clear. I soon gave up on Piezo (at least with their inks) for
other reasons, but the printer had started behaving oddly in other ways as
well. Right now, whenever I switch it on it it blinks its lights to tell me
there's either a paper feed problem or an improperly removed tape on one of
the cartridges. Since I can't get the cartridges to move to the left so I
can check them, I can do nothing about the latter. I have tried the
full-reset procedure from the MIS web site (several times), but nothing
works. There is no paper anywhere near the thing.

I do not really need this second printer: if my functioning 1160 goes bad I
will either get Epson to fix it or replace it with whatever the latest
model is. I have not yet sent in the warranty card for the sick one. I
don't have the patience to disassemble it to get the cartridges out, nor
the time to argue with Epson; besides, if I returned it in its present
condition it would contain the Piezo cartridges and poof! goes any
warranty. So:

Does anybody want this unit in its present condition? What I'm asking in
return is not even money but paper samples: there are certain papers that
look interesting but that I haven't tested yet; some are not available in
printable size, others are not included in sample packs, etc. What I need
are:

	Epson Archival Matte
	Crane Museo
	Hahnemuehle Structure 150
	Hahnemuehle Schoellershammer Velvet 225, and
	Hahnemuehle Photo Rag.

A couple of 8.5x11" sheets of each would be just right. Any takers? UPS
shipping included, along with a bunch of paper samples that I know I
_don't_ want to use.

If nobody wants it, any ideas for at least getting the cartridges over to
where I can change them would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

Nicholas,

Turn the printer off, use little finger to unlock print head (white tab
under print head), or spin large white cog at the left toward you to do the
same. Pull head towards carriage-left.

For head clogging - try checking the print-head seal (spongy black pad) at
carriage right is set up properly - see IJM tech support pages.

Before powering on again, push head back to home position, and re-lock by
spinning that cog again - this time away from you.

Easy!

By the way, what do you mean 'blinks its lights to tell me there's either a
paper feed problem or an improperly removed tape on one of the cartridges'?
Have you checked the warning lights with the error messages in the manual?

I would not advise swapping even a dodgy 1160 for 10 sheets of paper... :)

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Hartmann [mailto:POLYGLOT@...]
> Sent: 27 August 2001 14:10
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Epson 1160 for adoption
>
>
> Gentlemen -
>
> When I first started investigating this whole digital-printing
> procedure, I
> soon became persuaded that the Epson 1160 printer was the one to have. It
> proved difficult to find one, so I ended up reserving a couple of
> them, one
> refurbished (through RefurbDepot) and the other new (from an outfit that
> had bought up a bunch of them). The two of them became available on the
> same day, and I ended up buying both.
>
> The new one is working fine, happily generating nice prints using only the
> black cartridge (despite assurances from some list members that this is
> impossible). No banding, no nozzle clogging, no paper feed problems, no
> nothin' (knock on wood).
>
> The other one, however, is the one I unpacked first, and used right at the
> beginning to try out the Piezo BW software and inks. This may be
> coincidence, but: from the moment I replaced the OEM Epson inks, following
> a perfect nozzle check, with the Piezo inks, I could never get the nozzles
> completely clear. I soon gave up on Piezo (at least with their inks) for
> other reasons, but the printer had started behaving oddly in other ways as
> well. Right now, whenever I switch it on it it blinks its lights
> to tell me
> there's either a paper feed problem or an improperly removed tape
> on one of
> the cartridges. Since I can't get the cartridges to move to the left so I
> can check them, I can do nothing about the latter. I have tried the
> full-reset procedure from the MIS web site (several times), but nothing
> works. There is no paper anywhere near the thing.
>
> I do not really need this second printer: if my functioning 1160
> goes bad I
> will either get Epson to fix it or replace it with whatever the latest
> model is. I have not yet sent in the warranty card for the sick one. I
> don't have the patience to disassemble it to get the cartridges out, nor
> the time to argue with Epson; besides, if I returned it in its present
> condition it would contain the Piezo cartridges and poof! goes any
> warranty. So:
>
> Does anybody want this unit in its present condition? What I'm asking in
> return is not even money but paper samples: there are certain papers that
> look interesting but that I haven't tested yet; some are not available in
> printable size, others are not included in sample packs, etc. What I need
> are:
>
> 	Epson Archival Matte
> 	Crane Museo
> 	Hahnemuehle Structure 150
> 	Hahnemuehle Schoellershammer Velvet 225, and
> 	Hahnemuehle Photo Rag.
>
> A couple of 8.5x11" sheets of each would be just right. Any takers? UPS
> shipping included, along with a bunch of paper samples that I know I
> _don't_ want to use.
>
> If nobody wants it, any ideas for at least getting the cartridges over to
> where I can change them would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Nick
>
> NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
> 611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
> Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...
>
> Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Nicholas, 

I always thought there should be more adoptions taking place.  So I am interested.  I have the papers you want and a few more you have not mentioned.  And I have a CIS waiting for installation.

Email me asap at steadmanuhlich@... and we can discuss details offline.  

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nicholas Hartmann 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:10 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Epson 1160 for adoption


  Gentlemen -

  When I first started investigating this whole digital-printing procedure, I
  soon became persuaded that the Epson 1160 printer was the one to have. It
  proved difficult to find one, so I ended up reserving a couple of them, one
  refurbished (through RefurbDepot) and the other new (from an outfit that
  had bought up a bunch of them). The two of them became available on the
  same day, and I ended up buying both.

  The new one is working fine, happily generating nice prints using only the
  black cartridge (despite assurances from some list members that this is
  impossible). No banding, no nozzle clogging, no paper feed problems, no
  nothin' (knock on wood).

  The other one, however, is the one I unpacked first, and used right at the
  beginning to try out the Piezo BW software and inks. This may be
  coincidence, but: from the moment I replaced the OEM Epson inks, following
  a perfect nozzle check, with the Piezo inks, I could never get the nozzles
  completely clear. I soon gave up on Piezo (at least with their inks) for
  other reasons, but the printer had started behaving oddly in other ways as
  well. Right now, whenever I switch it on it it blinks its lights to tell me
  there's either a paper feed problem or an improperly removed tape on one of
  the cartridges. Since I can't get the cartridges to move to the left so I
  can check them, I can do nothing about the latter. I have tried the
  full-reset procedure from the MIS web site (several times), but nothing
  works. There is no paper anywhere near the thing.

  I do not really need this second printer: if my functioning 1160 goes bad I
  will either get Epson to fix it or replace it with whatever the latest
  model is. I have not yet sent in the warranty card for the sick one. I
  don't have the patience to disassemble it to get the cartridges out, nor
  the time to argue with Epson; besides, if I returned it in its present
  condition it would contain the Piezo cartridges and poof! goes any
  warranty. So:

  Does anybody want this unit in its present condition? What I'm asking in
  return is not even money but paper samples: there are certain papers that
  look interesting but that I haven't tested yet; some are not available in
  printable size, others are not included in sample packs, etc. What I need
  are:

        Epson Archival Matte
        Crane Museo
        Hahnemuehle Structure 150
        Hahnemuehle Schoellershammer Velvet 225, and
        Hahnemuehle Photo Rag.

  A couple of 8.5x11" sheets of each would be just right. Any takers? UPS
  shipping included, along with a bunch of paper samples that I know I
  _don't_ want to use.

  If nobody wants it, any ideas for at least getting the cartridges over to
  where I can change them would be appreciated.

  Thanks,

  -- Nick

  NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
  611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
  Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

  Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

>Nicholas,
>
>I always thought there should be more adoptions taking place.  So I am
>interested.  I have the papers you want and a few more you have not
>mentioned.  And I have a CIS waiting for installation.
>
>Email me asap at steadmanuhlich@... and we can discuss details
>offline.

Steadman -

Sorry, but I'm not in a position to do anything about the printer ASAP.
Please be patient: if the printer is still available for adoption, sale,
etc. next week, I will let you know.

Thank you,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

>Turn the printer off, use little finger to unlock print head (white tab
>under print head), or spin large white cog at the left toward you to do the
>same. Pull head towards carriage-left.
>
>For head clogging - try checking the print-head seal (spongy black pad) at
>carriage right is set up properly - see IJM tech support pages.
>
>Before powering on again, push head back to home position, and re-lock by
>spinning that cog again - this time away from you.
>
>Easy!
>
>By the way, what do you mean 'blinks its lights to tell me there's either a
>paper feed problem or an improperly removed tape on one of the cartridges'?
>Have you checked the warning lights with the error messages in the manual?
>
>I would not advise swapping even a dodgy 1160 for 10 sheets of paper... :)

Nij -

Not sure what to say, other than Thank you very much. I did as instructed,
removed the Piezo cartridges, reinstalled the OEM Epson ones, ran a nozzle
check and a few cleaning cycles, and all now appears to be normal. See my
abject apology to the list.

One of these years I will feel confident enough to participate in a print
exchange, and then you can see whether this was worth all the fuss!

Many thanks again,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English

Nicholas, 

Good luck with solving the printer problems.  Most adoptees usually miss their original parents...with a little more time with it and trying new clog techniques, you may "bond" with it.  

I hope my ASAP did not come across as demanding (was not meant that way but the terse nature of email may make people think acronyms are demanding).  Simply meant that I am swamped this week and yesterday and today were my best days for running stuff to the UPS/Fedex etc...I am in no rush for another printer. 

Regards, 
Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Nicholas Hartmann 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 3:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Epson 1160 for adoption


  >Nicholas,
  >
  >I always thought there should be more adoptions taking place.  So I am
  >interested.  I have the papers you want and a few more you have not
  >mentioned.  And I have a CIS waiting for installation.
  >
  >Email me asap at steadmanuhlich@... and we can discuss details
  >offline.

  Steadman -

  Sorry, but I'm not in a position to do anything about the printer ASAP.
  Please be patient: if the printer is still available for adoption, sale,
  etc. next week, I will let you know.

  Thank you,

  -- Nick

  NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
  611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
  Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

  Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  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




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

>Good luck with solving the printer problems.  Most adoptees usually miss
>their original parents...with a little more time with it and trying new
>clog techniques, you may "bond" with it.
>
>I hope my ASAP did not come across as demanding (was not meant that way
>but the terse nature of email may make people think acronyms are
>demanding).  Simply meant that I am swamped this week and yesterday and
>today were my best days for running stuff to the UPS/Fedex etc...I am in
>no rush for another printer.

Steadman -

No harm done. As you have probably read by now, the printer appears to be
back to normal. I will put it through a more rigorous test later on, but
for now I think I will keep it around.

Hope your week is not too hectic,

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN                                +1 (414) 271-4890
611 N. Broadway, Suite 509                  fax: +1 (414) 271-4892
Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA                       polyglot@...

Technical and scientific translator:  German and French -> English