Digital BW, The Print

Recently I recieved  b/w prints made on an Epson 7600 and 
9600. Contrary to the reports in the media color crossover and 
metamerism were quite evident. I examined each print under 
tungstun, fluorescent (3800K CRI 92 lamps) and daylight.

The output from my Epson 1280 and Epson 7000 with MIS FS/N 
Mix are far superior to what I examined. The 1280 and 7000 
prints are smoother and and have a "fine art" presence that the 
7600/9600 prints lacked.

A bit disappointing but not totally unexpected.

Mike

On 7/28/02 8:43 PM, "mkravit" <mjkaia@...> wrote:

> Recently I recieved  b/w prints made on an Epson 7600 and
> 9600. Contrary to the reports in the media color crossover and
> metamerism were quite evident. I examined each print under
> tungstun, fluorescent (3800K CRI 92 lamps) and daylight.


What black ink was used?  What papers?

Lawrence
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

The prints were made on several different papers. Epson Textured Fine 
Art, Epson Enhanced (EAM), and two OCE papers that I do not know the 
names for.

I don't know which black ink was used.

Mike


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Lawrence Smith 
<lsmith@l...> wrote:

> On 7/28/02 8:43 PM, "mkravit" <mjkaia@k...> wrote:
> 
> > Recently I recieved  b/w prints made on an Epson 7600 and
> > 9600. Contrary to the reports in the media color crossover and
> > metamerism were quite evident. I examined each print under
> > tungstun, fluorescent (3800K CRI 92 lamps) and daylight.
> 
> 
> What black ink was used?  What papers?
> 
> Lawrence
> ----------------------------------
> Lawrence W. Smith Photography
> http://www.lwsphoto.com
> lsmith@l...
> ----------------------------------

Richard,

I find he waxes poetic over many products.  His reviews (along with other 
"respected" review sites) and his wonderful online images convinced me to buy 
a couple of products that I found didn't quite hack it.  I think the reviews 
validate what you would have bought anyway and put you over the decision 
making hump more quickly.

I am now in a "try before you buy" mode.  Even though some of these reviewers 
seem very knowledgeable and technical, they might not have the same standards 
or make pictures for the same uses many of us on the list do.  Did Reichmann 
look at his monochromes in 3 types of light like Mike and I did?  In my case, 
a gallery would never take a b+w print that looked even the slightest bit 
magenta or green or inkjet looking.

Helene   


> I just read the Luminous Landscape review too. He seems SO sure about
> it. Even telling us to forget about using the word "Metamerism" ever
> again, almost cocky in his attitude. Yet, how can his results be so
> different than what a few have reported here? Lack of knowledge and
> experience? Michael seems quite learned and experienced. Willing to
> accept a lower standard of B&W print and metamerism? Perhaps, but I
> would hope to see less "attitude" and assuredness if this was the
> case. I sure hope all he says is true and perhaps the expereinced
> reported here were from poor examples. He's certainly staking a large
> part of his reputation on it is he not? Otherwise he'll just sound
> like an Epson lackey.



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

Monday, July 29, 2002, 7:43:53 AM, grdglass@... wrote:

gac> In my case, a gallery would never take a b+w print that looked
gac> even the slightest bit magenta or green or inkjet looking.

gac> Helene   


Helene,

I think in your last line above you make the most valid point of all
in this discussion. It's very confusing (and frustrating) when he says:

"The metamerism was still there, but one could live with
it."

and in the next sentence say

"metamerism is a thing of the past"

Then right after that again:

"Yes, it\ufffds still very slightly there. Slightly."

If I buy a sweet pastry and it has just a hint of garlic flavor,
*just* a hint, it's still too much.


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

To: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>

>I read Michael Reichmann's review of the 2200 as well. I hope that his
>assessment of the color capabilities of the printer are correct as I would
>purchase one for my wife's color work. He does say that there is slight
>metamerism but that he finds it so small that it is not an issue for him.
>From my own experience with B&W this is very personal and what doesn't
>bother Michael may be very noticeable to me and others.

I hope you could keep me informed of your conclusions on the comparison of the 2200's color capabilities, especially in comparison to the 1280, as I am thinking of getting one to replace my 1280. I realize that this is a B&W list, but with the demise of Leben's forum, perhaps this subject can be treated here. Otherwise, please keep me informed of your conclusions by e-mail.

We will be discussing color performance of the 2200/7600/9600 on the
archival list as user reports come in.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/archivalcolor

There has already been discussion of the 7600/9600 performance on the
Epson9000 list.

Robert

On 7/29/02 4:41 PM, "Mitch Alland" <malland@...> wrote:

> To: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
> 
>> I read Michael Reichmann's review of the 2200 as well. I hope that his
>> assessment of the color capabilities of the printer are correct as I would
>> purchase one for my wife's color work. He does say that there is slight
>> metamerism but that he finds it so small that it is not an issue for him.
>> From my own experience with B&W this is very personal and what doesn't
>> bother Michael may be very noticeable to me and others.
> 
> I hope you could keep me informed of your conclusions on the comparison of the
> 2200's color capabilities, especially in comparison to the 1280, as I am
> thinking of getting one to replace my 1280. I realize that this is a B&W list,
> but with the demise of Leben's forum, perhaps this subject can be treated
> here. Otherwise, please keep me informed of your conclusions by e-mail.
> 
>