Digital BW, The Print

Mitch Alland wrote:
> 
> After reading Reichmann's conclusion that B&W on the 2200 was so good right out of the box that he was retiring his Piezography system, I had a nagging memory that he had said something similar about the 1280. Actually, it was the 1270. Here's what he wrote in the 1270 review:
> 
> >I've found that the 1270 printer produces monochrome prints with
> >essentially no colour cast. On Heavyweight Matt Paper, through
> >a 4X loupe, they are virtually indistinguishable from a
> >traditional silver print on matt paper. To the naked eye,
> >completely so.
> 
> Clearly, his demands for B&W do not seem to be what many of the people on this list require. Therefore, we need some other judgments on this matter.
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok


Good going Mitch ! 
I had remembered that same quote and I was also going to hunt it down
and post it on here. I had read that at the beginning of my Inkjet quest
almost 2 years ago and it gave me false hope....


-Jeff

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jeff Magidson" <jeffm@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Luminous Landscape 2200 Review


>
>
> Mitch Alland wrote:
> >
> > After reading Reichmann's conclusion that B&W on the 2200 was so good
right out of the box that he was retiring his Piezography system, I had a
nagging memory that he had said something similar about the 1280. Actually,
it was the 1270. Here's what he wrote in the 1270 review:
> >
> > >I've found that the 1270 printer produces monochrome prints with
> > >essentially no colour cast. On Heavyweight Matt Paper, through
> > >a 4X loupe, they are virtually indistinguishable from a
> > >traditional silver print on matt paper. To the naked eye,
> > >completely so.
> >
> > Clearly, his demands for B&W do not seem to be what many of the people
on this list require. Therefore, we need some other judgments on this
matter.
> >
> > --Mitch/Bangkok
>
>
> Good going Mitch !
> I had remembered that same quote and I was also going to hunt it down
> and post it on here. I had read that at the beginning of my Inkjet quest
> almost 2 years ago and it gave me false hope....
>
>
Jeff,

Same here! I spent many frustrating hours working with my 1270 trying to
make B&W prints that pleased me. It was enough though to convince me that
digital printing had the potential and lead me on to Piezo and a 1200 which
is another story.

And my thanks also to Mitch for unearthing that old review to giving us some
perspective.

Martin Wesley

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

Apparently, there are  a lot of perfectly succesful, talented photographers out 
there who don't get what bw printing is all about. I just listened in on a 
presentation by Jeff Shewe who showcased the 2200 and lots of prints of his 
work, bw among others.  They weren't bad, but if that was the only option 
available, I would keep my darkroom. They don't hold a candle to what we are 
talking about here. 

The only thing going for the 2200 is that it offers a one-printer solution that 
does an adequate job of  printing the occasional monochrome portfolio print. 
Very helpful to the photographer who doesn't want to get into the esoterica of 
piezo printing and that second, third and fourth printer - depending on the 
desired hue! 
Color may be another matter, though.



Antonis


> > Mitch Alland wrote:
> > >
> > > After reading Reichmann's conclusion that B&W on the 2200 was so 
good
> right out of the box that he was retiring his Piezography system, I had a
> nagging memory that he had said something similar about the 1280. 
Actually,
> it was the 1270.