Digital BW, The Print

> So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted
to
> make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You
can't do
> it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's
> insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so
> you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print.
You
> can do this on a Roland wide format printer but not an Epson. So we
> discussed all kinds of needs for both desktop and larger format printers.

It is of course quite easy to do that in ColorDraw and Photopaint with the
imposition tools in the printer menu. Easier than in my Wasatch SoftRip.
Whether this is a lack in the Epson driver or Photoshop is open for
discussion.

A lot could be done at the Epson drivers though. A wider choice of virtual
paper settings (several ink limits, GCR settings etc) to make custom RGB
printer profiling easier is one thing. Or a menu that allows ink limit
setting and UCR, GCR etc.

Ernst

Did Epson Europe proceed along the same lines of using consultants to 
advise them on this issue?  If so did they come to a different 
recommendation or did Epson ignore their recommendation?  If the 
recommendation concerning the gray balancer S/W package by the European 
group was different - why so?

While it is not unusual for slightly differences for products in 
different parts of the world the difference between the 2100 and the 
2200 is a bit extreme.

Truman

thedigitaldog wrote:

> >NONE of us were paid to be in California to advise.
> >
> >
> I NEVER even implied you were...
>
> The point wasn't directly pointed at YOU! Some seem to think any 
> decisions
> made on the part of the Epson advisers was motivated by finical gain. 
> I point
> out that none of use were paid simply for all to know that the 
> collective group
> (who would have probably cost $30K for one day of work) did so because be
> believe in Epson products and want to allow Epson to make rational
> decisions based on our collective expertise.
>
> Epson asked the dozen of so people to meet because of our expertise. We
> are not prefect by any stretch. Collectively, we are damn close to 
> representing
> the best minds in the imaging world (or at least representative in the 
> U.S.).
> There experts in the field of imaging, digital printing, photography 
> etc. We
> were asked to evaluate the printer for PROFESSIONAL users since we are 
> all
> professional users. The fact that we felt unanimously that the product 
> was far
> too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided 
> that GB
> wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@m...> 
wrote:

> Did Epson Europe proceed along the same lines of using consultants to 
> advise them on this issue?  

As far as I know, they did not.

Andrew: Here is a question that has been addressed about 8 million times, but I have a chance to ask a professional if you have a minute.  My printing has now moved almost exclusively to the Epson 1270 (and soon the Epson ???) from the wet darkroom.  I now need to address profiling.  I am getting good color and b&w prints by correcting with a PS layer before printing, but possibly not the best results obtainable.  Having profiles made seems attractive, but I have noticed what appear to be variances in Epson OEM inks, would like to try some more of the hextone b&w sets in addition to color (dedicated second printer), and so forth. That indicates a purchased system, and I don't mind the learning curve.  Can you make a recommendation for a good profiling system that is inexpensive (say $500 or less), or is that an unrealistic goal?  Aside from the Epson I have the typical consumer gear - a Windows XP PC, Sony Multiscan E500 tube, Saphir Ultra 2 and Nikon 4000ED scanners.  Scanning is mainly from large format b&w negs, though I find myself using more 35mm (b&w, some color neg and chromes).   thx much for any info.

  --Ken Carney

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: thedigitaldog 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 11:57 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW


  >NONE of us were paid to be in California to advise. 
  > 
  >
  I NEVER even implied you were...

  The point wasn't directly pointed at YOU! Some seem to think any decisions 
  made on the part of the Epson advisers was motivated by finical gain. I point 
  out that none of use were paid simply for all to know that the collective group 
  (who would have probably cost $30K for one day of work) did so because be 
  believe in Epson products and want to allow Epson to make rational 
  decisions based on our collective expertise. 

  Epson asked the dozen of so people to meet because of our expertise. We 
  are not prefect by any stretch. Collectively, we are damn close to representing 
  the best minds in the imaging world (or at least representative in the U.S.). 
  There experts in the field of imaging, digital printing, photography etc. We 
  were asked to evaluate the printer for PROFESSIONAL users since we are all 
  professional users. The fact that we felt unanimously that the product was far 
  too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided that GB 
  wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users. 


  >Most if not all of us have publically discussed our dislike for aspects of the 
  >Epson print driver and the fact that a $10K printer uses the SAME driver as a 
  >$99 printer.

  >and that relates to the 2200 (a prosumer product) how? 

  I just told you. We were there by request to look at the printer for prosumers 
  and pros. Pro's use the 2200 too! One well know photographer in the group 
  uses this printer and I suspect he charges more in one day then most people 
  on this list make in 6 months! You also assume that the 2200 differs in how it 
  operates from the 9600 or 7600 but it's simply a smaller version and our 
  comments were also viewed by the product manager of the pro line. There 
  isn't much difference in the 2200 from the 9600 other than size and price. 

  >You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific 
  >vested interests... 

  Yes indeed, at least a specific mindset! Can you imagine how well a product 
  would be if it was designed by committee? The advice given was from a very 
  specific slant. You assume that the 2200 was designed for the same group of 
  people that might go into Office Depot for a color printer. It wasn't. We were all 
  made fully aware of the aim of this productlong before we tested it. That's why 
  this group was assembled. We were hand picked based on our specific slant 
  and based on the aim of this printer. 


  >and if you go back through my posts you'll see that 
  >I said that was to be expected , but was not therefore axiomatically 
  >negative. The vested interest NEED to be represented.. BUT, as much as 
  >is possible, they ALL need to be represented.. 

  Product design by committee for pro users, and morons? I wish that could be 
  done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200, 
  the focus was made.

  >You have made clear your 
  >independence and objectivity... That does NOT mean you have NO vested 
  >interests at all.. 

  A post was made to the contrary. I think it should be made CLEAR that our 
  collective advice was made for the sole purpose of producing a better 
  product. 


  >The comment one or two individuals (and I was NOT 
  >among them) made about your company and profiles, is NOT the vested 
  >interest of which I speak.. 

  I understand that and my follow up were not aimed at you personally. 

  >Here's my quote as you YOURSELF posted it
  >"Does anyone know if there was a single expert on EPSON's panel who had 
  >publicly criticized earlier EPSON marketing choices? "

  >You really need to read some studies of group dynamics... You may be an 
  >expert on profiles, etc.. but from your post you are WAAAY out of your 
  >depth on discussing group dynamics and how blue ribbon panels, "as an 
  >organic entity," operate.

  I never said I was such an expert in this area. I can only tell you that a group of 
  people who's advice many companies have asked for in the past were 
  assembled and we all unanimously agreed about where GB should be in the 
  food chain. Some didn't like that decision Epson made (many who never saw 
  the GB in the first place). Based on those people's expertise (or lack) in the 
  field AND the fact they never saw the software or knew the aim of the product, 
  I have to dismiss much of their posts based on their misunderstandings. 

  >And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping 
  >product accomplishes that HOW?

  Foremost, it insures a good user experience. Do you really think every piece 
  of software ever developed sees the light of day once real users hammer on 
  it? 

  >But see, it doesn't matter does it? IS KEEPING IT OUT OF THE CURRENT 
  >SHIPPING PRODUCT SOMEHOW GOING TO GET THAT MONEY BACK?

  In the long run yes. The software has to be keep up to date. It needs to be 
  changed as the drivers are updated as well as all the flavors of OS change 
  (OSX 10.2 will change a lot of issues with printing). It keeps cost down since 
  tech support is very expensive, especially for a product that doesn't give any 
  bang for the buck as GB does. What happens as the reference target fades or 
  the user loses it? Epson has to stock that target and keep dealing with 
  customers that need a new one. They have to update the PDF as they refine 
  the product (and boy, GB needs refinement in a very big way). Better to cut 
  your loses and move one. 

  >I assume you aren't going to tell me that the EPSON decision-makers are 
  >so wholly irrational that you felt that by having EPSON USA NOT ship the 
  >Grey balancer that EPSON would in the next go round not "waste their 
  >time" on software other than the driver?

  That was our advice to them. We had 4 high level people from Epson Japan 
  at the two day meetings. One was in change of ink, the other in charge of the 
  driver. One was in charge of GB. Epson flew them from Japan to meet with us. 
  We were able to talk with them and tell them our wishes for newer inks, newer 
  capabilities of the driver. We were very firm in letting these key people from 
  Japan know that the focus made on GB was a bad one. Did that help? Time 
  will tell. 

  >OR did you argue that the money saved in tech support calls for a piece 
  >of "software from hell" could be used to build better drivers for 10K 
  >printers sold on the USA market.. ? 

  We did that and told them ALL the printers need better drivers. 

  So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted to 
  make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You can't do 
  it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's 
  insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so 
  you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print. You 
  can do this on a Roland wide format printer but not an Epson. So we 
  discussed all kinds of needs for both desktop and larger format printers. 

  >If you even suggested that, 
  >suggesting that the US pro-sumer market should indirectly support the 
  >development of drivers for the large format market... 

  No, I said it was silly to see the same driver on a $99 printer drive a $10,000 
  printer. The two have vastly different requirements and users. Make the $99 
  driver easier to use and the $10K driver more robust. 

  >Actually deciding NOT to ship the software given that a priori 
  >investment, makes the time put into the PDF and even into writing the 
  >software a COMPLETE loss..

  Yes, cut your losses and move on. HAD Japan shown us the product when it 
  was pre-alpha, we could have helped design a better product in the first 
  place. They didn't so our advice was to cut your losses and move on. I still 
  think that's a good idea (as apparently the others in our group feel). Several in 
  the group has produced or been instrumental in software development. If you 
  had any idea of what has ended up in Adobe Photoshop over the years from 
  direct involvement with some of our group, you'd be very impressed. 

  >So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more 
  >R&D how? 

  It gets the resources that would be used to continue with GB off of GB onto 
  something far more useful. 

  >HUH? You're becoming irrational... If you think the 2200 will be their 
  >last prosumer entry I might suggest you need a shot of thorazine to stop 
  >whatever delusions you are having..

  Did I say that? I said that by moving resources from GB, those resources can 
  be used for more important needs. 

  >I NEVER suggested you pushed the elimination of the software because it 
  >would compete with custom profiles.. 

  You didn't, others did. 

  >What I DID suggest was that it is 
  >impossible for individuals with vested interests to leave them at the 
  >conference room door -- the reality is those interests will define the 
  >range of your real world experiences.. 

  Perhaps you can convince Epson that your expertise in this area is such that 
  next time such a group is assembled (and it will be), you can be included. But 
  such decisions will not be made casually or by committee. I think it would be a 
  very bad idea to have such groups assembled based on a users ability to 
  plug a USB cable into a printer. I'm not saying you are such a person but 
  rather that there are only so many people that can be brought together to 
  advice a company and that these people have to have some level of expertise 
  and an idea of what a product is aimed to do and have an idea of the user 
  base. 


  >If you are frustrated because people choose to critique what the panel 
  said, you should have chosen not to participate.. 

  I'm frustrated by people that make stupid assumptions based on things they 
  know nothing about (like that we advised that GB be removed because some 
  of us make profiles). Again, that isn't aimed at you. Those that made such 
  assumptions know who they are. I'm frustrated by people that complain that 
  they didn't get a piece of software they know nothing about nor have ever 
  seen or tried. I'm frustrated by people who suggest that others shouldn't 
  purchase a 2200 because the software wasn't placed in the box in the U.S. 
  and discount a great printer that does a fine job without said software. 

  The bottom line is GB isn't in the U.S. shipping product and it is elsewhere. 
  Let's see how well it does in other markets.




        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 

        Click here to find your contact lenses! 

  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

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




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



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

Andrew,

As far as I can see, the 2200/2100 is a 'prosumer' printer - aimed at
serious amateur photographers. I can see that some professionals might see
that they can save a buck or two by buying one instead of a professional
Epson, but that should NOT change the design team's aims.

As a serious amateur photographer in Europe I will buy a 2100, and I hope I
get the Gray Balancer. I already have ProfilerPro and a ColorMouse for
making 'serious' profiles, but the Gray Balancer from what I have read is
far simpler than profile-making (I have made several hundred 'serious'
profiles that do not meet my ideal so far). I've just spent days (literally)
using PS curves (that you advocate) and transfer curves to try and produce a
decent black&white print with normal color inks on a 1270. And using PS
curves to try and produce a modified ProfilerPro profile (with DoctorPro)
that produced a neutral grayscale. No luck so far, despite the waste of vast
amounts of paper and ink.

I can therefore understand the ire of US potential buyers of the 2200 who
see that you and others have stopped them having another alternative -
however weak that alternative may be. Custom profiles may be the answer to
using papers and inks that are non-Epson; you have nothing to compare them
with, so anything is better than nothing. But if you compare profiles of
Epson papers and inks with the Epson profiles, I find it is difficult to
beat them. You may beat them on one characteristic, such as gamut, but to
beat them on all, such as linearity and shadow detail, blues and purples
etc., is difficult. Perhaps not to you.

I just don't think that professionals such as you should be advising Epson
on what they give to us amateurs. By all means use your panel to advise them
on 5000 - 10000 professional printers, but the 2200/2100 printers are not
professional printers - they are for the likes of me who can just about
afford \ufffd500 for a printer, after perhaps wasting \ufffd1000 on ProfilerRGB,
ProfilerPro, and a ColorMouse!! I don't want to print on bog-paper, or paper
serviettes; I'm quite happy printing on the papers that the paper
manufacturers and ink manufacturers have carefully matched and sold to
Epson.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:57 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW


> >NONE of us were paid to be in California to advise.
> >
> >
> I NEVER even implied you were...
>
> The point wasn't directly pointed at YOU! Some seem to think any decisions
> made on the part of the Epson advisers was motivated by finical gain. I
point
> out that none of use were paid simply for all to know that the collective
group
> (who would have probably cost $30K for one day of work) did so because be
> believe in Epson products and want to allow Epson to make rational
> decisions based on our collective expertise.
>
> Epson asked the dozen of so people to meet because of our expertise. We
> are not prefect by any stretch. Collectively, we are damn close to
representing
> the best minds in the imaging world (or at least representative in the
U.S.).
> There experts in the field of imaging, digital printing, photography etc.
We
> were asked to evaluate the printer for PROFESSIONAL users since we are all
> professional users. The fact that we felt unanimously that the product was
far
> too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided that
GB
> wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users.
>
>
> >Most if not all of us have publically discussed our dislike for aspects
of the
> >Epson print driver and the fact that a $10K printer uses the SAME driver
as a
> >$99 printer.
>
> >and that relates to the 2200 (a prosumer product) how?
>
> I just told you. We were there by request to look at the printer for
prosumers
> and pros. Pro's use the 2200 too! One well know photographer in the group
> uses this printer and I suspect he charges more in one day then most
people
> on this list make in 6 months! You also assume that the 2200 differs in
how it
> operates from the 9600 or 7600 but it's simply a smaller version and our
> comments were also viewed by the product manager of the pro line. There
> isn't much difference in the 2200 from the 9600 other than size and price.
>
> >You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific
> >vested interests...
>
> Yes indeed, at least a specific mindset! Can you imagine how well a
product
> would be if it was designed by committee? The advice given was from a very
> specific slant. You assume that the 2200 was designed for the same group
of
> people that might go into Office Depot for a color printer. It wasn't. We
were all
> made fully aware of the aim of this productlong before we tested it.
That's why
> this group was assembled. We were hand picked based on our specific slant
> and based on the aim of this printer.
>
>
> >and if you go back through my posts you'll see that
> >I said that was to be expected , but was not therefore axiomatically
> >negative. The vested interest NEED to be represented.. BUT, as much as
> >is possible, they ALL need to be represented..
>
> Product design by committee for pro users, and morons? I wish that could
be
> done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200,
> the focus was made.
>
> >You have made clear your
> >independence and objectivity... That does NOT mean you have NO vested
> >interests at all..
>
> A post was made to the contrary. I think it should be made CLEAR that our
> collective advice was made for the sole purpose of producing a better
> product.
>
>
> >The comment one or two individuals (and I was NOT
> >among them) made about your company and profiles, is NOT the vested
> >interest of which I speak..
>
> I understand that and my follow up were not aimed at you personally.
>
> >Here's my quote as you YOURSELF posted it
> >"Does anyone know if there was a single expert on EPSON's panel who had
> >publicly criticized earlier EPSON marketing choices? "
>
> >You really need to read some studies of group dynamics... You may be an
> >expert on profiles, etc.. but from your post you are WAAAY out of your
> >depth on discussing group dynamics and how blue ribbon panels, "as an
> >organic entity," operate.
>
> I never said I was such an expert in this area. I can only tell you that a
group of
> people who's advice many companies have asked for in the past were
> assembled and we all unanimously agreed about where GB should be in the
> food chain. Some didn't like that decision Epson made (many who never saw
> the GB in the first place). Based on those people's expertise (or lack) in
the
> field AND the fact they never saw the software or knew the aim of the
product,
> I have to dismiss much of their posts based on their misunderstandings.
>
> >And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping
> >product accomplishes that HOW?
>
> Foremost, it insures a good user experience. Do you really think every
piece
> of software ever developed sees the light of day once real users hammer on
> it?
>
> >But see, it doesn't matter does it? IS KEEPING IT OUT OF THE CURRENT
> >SHIPPING PRODUCT SOMEHOW GOING TO GET THAT MONEY BACK?
>
> In the long run yes. The software has to be keep up to date. It needs to
be
> changed as the drivers are updated as well as all the flavors of OS change
> (OSX 10.2 will change a lot of issues with printing). It keeps cost down
since
> tech support is very expensive, especially for a product that doesn't give
any
> bang for the buck as GB does. What happens as the reference target fades
or
> the user loses it? Epson has to stock that target and keep dealing with
> customers that need a new one. They have to update the PDF as they refine
> the product (and boy, GB needs refinement in a very big way). Better to
cut
> your loses and move one.
>
> >I assume you aren't going to tell me that the EPSON decision-makers are
> >so wholly irrational that you felt that by having EPSON USA NOT ship the
> >Grey balancer that EPSON would in the next go round not "waste their
> >time" on software other than the driver?
>
> That was our advice to them. We had 4 high level people from Epson Japan
> at the two day meetings. One was in change of ink, the other in charge of
the
> driver. One was in charge of GB. Epson flew them from Japan to meet with
us.
> We were able to talk with them and tell them our wishes for newer inks,
newer
> capabilities of the driver. We were very firm in letting these key people
from
> Japan know that the focus made on GB was a bad one. Did that help? Time
> will tell.
>
> >OR did you argue that the money saved in tech support calls for a piece
> >of "software from hell" could be used to build better drivers for 10K
> >printers sold on the USA market.. ?
>
> We did that and told them ALL the printers need better drivers.
>
> So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted
to
> make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You
can't do
> it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's
> insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so
> you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print.
You
> can do this on a Roland wide format printer but not an Epson. So we
> discussed all kinds of needs for both desktop and larger format printers.
>
> >If you even suggested that,
> >suggesting that the US pro-sumer market should indirectly support the
> >development of drivers for the large format market...
>
> No, I said it was silly to see the same driver on a $99 printer drive a
$10,000
> printer. The two have vastly different requirements and users. Make the
$99
> driver easier to use and the $10K driver more robust.
>
> >Actually deciding NOT to ship the software given that a priori
> >investment, makes the time put into the PDF and even into writing the
> >software a COMPLETE loss..
>
> Yes, cut your losses and move on. HAD Japan shown us the product when it
> was pre-alpha, we could have helped design a better product in the first
> place. They didn't so our advice was to cut your losses and move on. I
still
> think that's a good idea (as apparently the others in our group feel).
Several in
> the group has produced or been instrumental in software development. If
you
> had any idea of what has ended up in Adobe Photoshop over the years from
> direct involvement with some of our group, you'd be very impressed.
>
> >So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more
> >R&D how?
>
> It gets the resources that would be used to continue with GB off of GB
onto
> something far more useful.
>
> >HUH? You're becoming irrational... If you think the 2200 will be their
> >last prosumer entry I might suggest you need a shot of thorazine to stop
> >whatever delusions you are having..
>
> Did I say that? I said that by moving resources from GB, those resources
can
> be used for more important needs.
>
> >I NEVER suggested you pushed the elimination of the software because it
> >would compete with custom profiles..
>
> You didn't, others did.
>
> >What I DID suggest was that it is
> >impossible for individuals with vested interests to leave them at the
> >conference room door -- the reality is those interests will define the
> >range of your real world experiences..
>
> Perhaps you can convince Epson that your expertise in this area is such
that
> next time such a group is assembled (and it will be), you can be included.
But
> such decisions will not be made casually or by committee. I think it would
be a
> very bad idea to have such groups assembled based on a users ability to
> plug a USB cable into a printer. I'm not saying you are such a person but
> rather that there are only so many people that can be brought together to
> advice a company and that these people have to have some level of
expertise
> and an idea of what a product is aimed to do and have an idea of the user
> base.
>
>
> >If you are frustrated because people choose to critique what the panel
> said, you should have chosen not to participate..
>
> I'm frustrated by people that make stupid assumptions based on things they
> know nothing about (like that we advised that GB be removed because some
> of us make profiles). Again, that isn't aimed at you. Those that made such
> assumptions know who they are. I'm frustrated by people that complain that
> they didn't get a piece of software they know nothing about nor have ever
> seen or tried. I'm frustrated by people who suggest that others shouldn't
> purchase a 2200 because the software wasn't placed in the box in the U.S.
> and discount a great printer that does a fine job without said software.
>
> The bottom line is GB isn't in the U.S. shipping product and it is
elsewhere.
> Let's see how well it does in other markets.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

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

I have to confess that I haven't read every post on this incredibly long and
angry thread...but here are my two cents (hopefully not more gas into the
fire...but we'll see).

As far as the grey balancer goes...I totally trust someone like Andrew
Rodney to make the right decision.  Andrew deals with "prosumer" clients
everyday and I think has a good grasp of what they can and can't do...that's
a part of his business.  He knows exactly the types of problems that
prosumers have with color management issues and I think would be in an
excellent position to help Epson estimate what would likely be their
technical support burden.  Many pieces of software go through development
and even beta and never make it to market for exactly these reasons.  Many
products do get to market...that never should!  It is absolutely not up to
us the end users...but is purely an economic decision that the developer
needs to make.  Personally, I don't think it would get rid of
metamerism...thus what's the fuss?

If you want to produce great BW prints...why are you wasting your time
talking about the 2200/2100?  The prints from these printers will be
incredibly expensive to make (because of ink cost) and will be inferior to
what you can produce from the current quad options for a lot less money with
an older printer at least with respect to metamerism and lightfastness and
probably also with respect to print quality.  If you want gloss prints use
Lyson SG with your 1270...you'll get some metamerism like you would from the
ultrachromes. If you want toned matte prints use MIS VM and Paul Roark's
curves or simply hand fill carts with any of the various Piezotone inks
coming out.  If you like prints around neutral...set up your 1270 with a CIS
and put the new Selenium Piezotones in it...and experiment with papers...you
can cover the entire neutral range with these inks...and NO metamerism.
Either of these options will give you better BW prints for much, much less
money.
 
In my opinion the new 2200/2100 presents a nice option for the prosumer who
wants to make color prints that have about the longevity of fuji crystal
archive. It presents really the only option for digital color luster/gloss
printing with better than 60 yr lightfastness ratings. It may give better
color prints on matte fine art papers than the 3rd party color inks (e.g.,
Gen4, MIS Perpetual, Indelible Inks) currently available...but it will cost
much, much more per print and you will get relatively inferior
lightfastness.

I'm likely to buy a 2200 to experiment with color printing...but honestly,
from what I have seen so far (BW sample prints from three different people
using either the 7600 or 2200), the ultrachromes are not going to be the all
in one color/BW option.  If you are a prosumer...you probably can find the
money for two printers.  Regardless, you already have one printer that you
can use for BW and you were going to buy a 2200 anyway...so I guess you did
have the money for 2 printers

Robert

On 8/3/02 1:22 PM, "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...> wrote:

> Andrew,
> 
> As far as I can see, the 2200/2100 is a 'prosumer' printer - aimed at
> serious amateur photographers. I can see that some professionals might see
> that they can save a buck or two by buying one instead of a professional
> Epson, but that should NOT change the design team's aims.
> 
> As a serious amateur photographer in Europe I will buy a 2100, and I hope I
> get the Gray Balancer. I already have ProfilerPro and a ColorMouse for
> making 'serious' profiles, but the Gray Balancer from what I have read is
> far simpler than profile-making (I have made several hundred 'serious'
> profiles that do not meet my ideal so far). I've just spent days (literally)
> using PS curves (that you advocate) and transfer curves to try and produce a
> decent black&white print with normal color inks on a 1270. And using PS
> curves to try and produce a modified ProfilerPro profile (with DoctorPro)
> that produced a neutral grayscale. No luck so far, despite the waste of vast
> amounts of paper and ink.
> 
> I can therefore understand the ire of US potential buyers of the 2200 who
> see that you and others have stopped them having another alternative -
> however weak that alternative may be. Custom profiles may be the answer to
> using papers and inks that are non-Epson; you have nothing to compare them
> with, so anything is better than nothing. But if you compare profiles of
> Epson papers and inks with the Epson profiles, I find it is difficult to
> beat them. You may beat them on one characteristic, such as gamut, but to
> beat them on all, such as linearity and shadow detail, blues and purples
> etc., is difficult. Perhaps not to you.
> 
> I just don't think that professionals such as you should be advising Epson
> on what they give to us amateurs. By all means use your panel to advise them
> on 5000 - 10000 professional printers, but the 2200/2100 printers are not
> professional printers - they are for the likes of me who can just about
> afford £500 for a printer, after perhaps wasting £1000 on ProfilerRGB,
> ProfilerPro, and a ColorMouse!! I don't want to print on bog-paper, or paper
> serviettes; I'm quite happy printing on the papers that the paper
> manufacturers and ink manufacturers have carefully matched and sold to
> Epson.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:57 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW
> 
> 
>>> NONE of us were paid to be in California to advise.
>>> 
>>> 
>> I NEVER even implied you were...
>> 
>> The point wasn't directly pointed at YOU! Some seem to think any decisions
>> made on the part of the Epson advisers was motivated by finical gain. I
> point
>> out that none of use were paid simply for all to know that the collective
> group
>> (who would have probably cost $30K for one day of work) did so because be
>> believe in Epson products and want to allow Epson to make rational
>> decisions based on our collective expertise.
>> 
>> Epson asked the dozen of so people to meet because of our expertise. We
>> are not prefect by any stretch. Collectively, we are damn close to
> representing
>> the best minds in the imaging world (or at least representative in the
> U.S.).
>> There experts in the field of imaging, digital printing, photography etc.
> We
>> were asked to evaluate the printer for PROFESSIONAL users since we are all
>> professional users. The fact that we felt unanimously that the product was
> far
>> too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided that
> GB
>> wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users.
>> 
>> 
>>> Most if not all of us have publically discussed our dislike for aspects
> of the
>>> Epson print driver and the fact that a $10K printer uses the SAME driver
> as a
>>> $99 printer.
>> 
>>> and that relates to the 2200 (a prosumer product) how?
>> 
>> I just told you. We were there by request to look at the printer for
> prosumers
>> and pros. Pro's use the 2200 too! One well know photographer in the group
>> uses this printer and I suspect he charges more in one day then most
> people
>> on this list make in 6 months! You also assume that the 2200 differs in
> how it
>> operates from the 9600 or 7600 but it's simply a smaller version and our
>> comments were also viewed by the product manager of the pro line. There
>> isn't much difference in the 2200 from the 9600 other than size and price.
>> 
>>> You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific
>>> vested interests...
>> 
>> Yes indeed, at least a specific mindset! Can you imagine how well a
> product
>> would be if it was designed by committee? The advice given was from a very
>> specific slant. You assume that the 2200 was designed for the same group
> of
>> people that might go into Office Depot for a color printer. It wasn't. We
> were all
>> made fully aware of the aim of this productlong before we tested it.
> That's why
>> this group was assembled. We were hand picked based on our specific slant
>> and based on the aim of this printer.
>> 
>> 
>>> and if you go back through my posts you'll see that
>>> I said that was to be expected , but was not therefore axiomatically
>>> negative. The vested interest NEED to be represented.. BUT, as much as
>>> is possible, they ALL need to be represented..
>> 
>> Product design by committee for pro users, and morons? I wish that could
> be
>> done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200,
>> the focus was made.
>> 
>>> You have made clear your
>>> independence and objectivity... That does NOT mean you have NO vested
>>> interests at all..
>> 
>> A post was made to the contrary. I think it should be made CLEAR that our
>> collective advice was made for the sole purpose of producing a better
>> product.
>> 
>> 
>>> The comment one or two individuals (and I was NOT
>>> among them) made about your company and profiles, is NOT the vested
>>> interest of which I speak..
>> 
>> I understand that and my follow up were not aimed at you personally.
>> 
>>> Here's my quote as you YOURSELF posted it
>>> "Does anyone know if there was a single expert on EPSON's panel who had
>>> publicly criticized earlier EPSON marketing choices? "
>> 
>>> You really need to read some studies of group dynamics... You may be an
>>> expert on profiles, etc.. but from your post you are WAAAY out of your
>>> depth on discussing group dynamics and how blue ribbon panels, "as an
>>> organic entity," operate.
>> 
>> I never said I was such an expert in this area. I can only tell you that a
> group of
>> people who's advice many companies have asked for in the past were
>> assembled and we all unanimously agreed about where GB should be in the
>> food chain. Some didn't like that decision Epson made (many who never saw
>> the GB in the first place). Based on those people's expertise (or lack) in
> the
>> field AND the fact they never saw the software or knew the aim of the
> product,
>> I have to dismiss much of their posts based on their misunderstandings.
>> 
>>> And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping
>>> product accomplishes that HOW?
>> 
>> Foremost, it insures a good user experience. Do you really think every
> piece
>> of software ever developed sees the light of day once real users hammer on
>> it?
>> 
>>> But see, it doesn't matter does it? IS KEEPING IT OUT OF THE CURRENT
>>> SHIPPING PRODUCT SOMEHOW GOING TO GET THAT MONEY BACK?
>> 
>> In the long run yes. The software has to be keep up to date. It needs to
> be
>> changed as the drivers are updated as well as all the flavors of OS change
>> (OSX 10.2 will change a lot of issues with printing). It keeps cost down
> since
>> tech support is very expensive, especially for a product that doesn't give
> any
>> bang for the buck as GB does. What happens as the reference target fades
> or
>> the user loses it? Epson has to stock that target and keep dealing with
>> customers that need a new one. They have to update the PDF as they refine
>> the product (and boy, GB needs refinement in a very big way). Better to
> cut
>> your loses and move one.
>> 
>>> I assume you aren't going to tell me that the EPSON decision-makers are
>>> so wholly irrational that you felt that by having EPSON USA NOT ship the
>>> Grey balancer that EPSON would in the next go round not "waste their
>>> time" on software other than the driver?
>> 
>> That was our advice to them. We had 4 high level people from Epson Japan
>> at the two day meetings. One was in change of ink, the other in charge of
> the
>> driver. One was in charge of GB. Epson flew them from Japan to meet with
> us.
>> We were able to talk with them and tell them our wishes for newer inks,
> newer
>> capabilities of the driver. We were very firm in letting these key people
> from
>> Japan know that the focus made on GB was a bad one. Did that help? Time
>> will tell.
>> 
>>> OR did you argue that the money saved in tech support calls for a piece
>>> of "software from hell" could be used to build better drivers for 10K
>>> printers sold on the USA market.. ?
>> 
>> We did that and told them ALL the printers need better drivers.
>> 
>> So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted
> to
>> make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You
> can't do
>> it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's
>> insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so
>> you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print.
> You
>> can do this on a Roland wide format printer but not an Epson. So we
>> discussed all kinds of needs for both desktop and larger format printers.
>> 
>>> If you even suggested that,
>>> suggesting that the US pro-sumer market should indirectly support the
>>> development of drivers for the large format market...
>> 
>> No, I said it was silly to see the same driver on a $99 printer drive a
> $10,000
>> printer. The two have vastly different requirements and users. Make the
> $99
>> driver easier to use and the $10K driver more robust.
>> 
>>> Actually deciding NOT to ship the software given that a priori
>>> investment, makes the time put into the PDF and even into writing the
>>> software a COMPLETE loss..
>> 
>> Yes, cut your losses and move on. HAD Japan shown us the product when it
>> was pre-alpha, we could have helped design a better product in the first
>> place. They didn't so our advice was to cut your losses and move on. I
> still
>> think that's a good idea (as apparently the others in our group feel).
> Several in
>> the group has produced or been instrumental in software development. If
> you
>> had any idea of what has ended up in Adobe Photoshop over the years from
>> direct involvement with some of our group, you'd be very impressed.
>> 
>>> So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more
>>> R&D how?
>> 
>> It gets the resources that would be used to continue with GB off of GB
> onto
>> something far more useful.
>> 
>>> HUH? You're becoming irrational... If you think the 2200 will be their
>>> last prosumer entry I might suggest you need a shot of thorazine to stop
>>> whatever delusions you are having..
>> 
>> Did I say that? I said that by moving resources from GB, those resources
> can
>> be used for more important needs.
>> 
>>> I NEVER suggested you pushed the elimination of the software because it
>>> would compete with custom profiles..
>> 
>> You didn't, others did.
>> 
>>> What I DID suggest was that it is
>>> impossible for individuals with vested interests to leave them at the
>>> conference room door -- the reality is those interests will define the
>>> range of your real world experiences..
>> 
>> Perhaps you can convince Epson that your expertise in this area is such
> that
>> next time such a group is assembled (and it will be), you can be included.
> But
>> such decisions will not be made casually or by committee. I think it would
> be a
>> very bad idea to have such groups assembled based on a users ability to
>> plug a USB cable into a printer. I'm not saying you are such a person but
>> rather that there are only so many people that can be brought together to
>> advice a company and that these people have to have some level of
> expertise
>> and an idea of what a product is aimed to do and have an idea of the user
>> base.
>> 
>> 
>>> If you are frustrated because people choose to critique what the panel
>> said, you should have chosen not to participate..
>> 
>> I'm frustrated by people that make stupid assumptions based on things they
>> know nothing about (like that we advised that GB be removed because some
>> of us make profiles). Again, that isn't aimed at you. Those that made such
>> assumptions know who they are. I'm frustrated by people that complain that
>> they didn't get a piece of software they know nothing about nor have ever
>> seen or tried. I'm frustrated by people who suggest that others shouldn't
>> purchase a 2200 because the software wasn't placed in the box in the U.S.
>> and discount a great printer that does a fine job without said software.
>> 
>> The bottom line is GB isn't in the U.S. shipping product and it is
> elsewhere.
>> Let's see how well it does in other markets.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@c...> 
wrote:
>Can you make a recommendation for a good profiling system that is 
inexpensive (say $500 or less), or is that an unrealistic goal?  

There are a few products in that price range that create profiles using a 
scanner rather than the most expensive part of a profiling package; the 
spectrophotometer. Unfortunately I found such packages to only do a fair job 
with most ink jets (for something like a Fuji Pictrography, I've had great 
results). 

So I can't really recommend anything in that price range. A good spectro will 
run about $1500 (the EyeOne is really the best bang for the buck). A software 
package on top of that will set you back $600-$900 on top of the EyeOne.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison <rmorrison@p...> 
wrote:
 
> If you want to produce great BW prints...why are you wasting your time
> talking about the 2200/2100?  The prints from these printers will be
> incredibly expensive to make (because of ink cost) and will be inferior to
> what you can produce from the current quad options for a lot less money 
with
> an older printer at least with respect to metamerism and lightfastness and
> probably also with respect to print quality. 

IF your aim is only to make B&W prints, I agree. The 2200 still shows some 
metamerism (far, far less than the last generation or printers). With the Gray 
Balancer, even the best ICC profile, that's not going away. I can get very 
neutral prints across the tonal scale with a good profile but it's not 100% and I 
still have metamerism issues, none of which would happen with a true black 
inkset. 

If you want to print color of course, the 2200 is very nice and you'll get 
acceptable B&W with some work. But there is no question that if B&W is all 
you care about, there are better solutions. Epson is fully aware of this. If you 
uses want to see a true B&W printer (one that has no color inks). Tell Epson 
as much and as often as you can. Photographers think that Epson should 
produce such a printer but remember that in the big picture, Epson isn't going 
to sell thousands upon thousands of B&W only printers. The more customers 
that make it clear that they would purchase such a printer, the more likely 
you'll see one. 

In other words, having a true B&W printer from Epson is NOT a technological 
problem. It's one of cost to put such a product to market.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@b...> wrote:

>I already have ProfilerPro and a ColorMouse for
> making 'serious' profiles, but the Gray Balancer from what I have read is
> far simpler than profile-making...

Not at all. Making a profile is far easier. What you need to do is use the NEW 
extended RGB target for ProfilerMaker instead of the 2.88 target and you'll 
see excellent profile quality and very, very good neutral gray balance. If you 
do not have this target, email me off list and I'll send it. I'm not sure it will work 
with the ColorMouse however. You'll need an EyeOne, Spectroscan or DTP-
41 as there are 900 patches to measure. 

The Gray Balancer isn't going to help with soft proofing images in Photoshop 
(in fact it will make it worse as you've altered the behavior of the printer and 
thus your profiles are now hosed). That's a serious problem since you really 
need to use profiles to alter the RGB values in a file for the Epson and have 
control over gamut mapping. 
 
> I just don't think that professionals such as you should be advising Epson
> on what they give to us amateurs. 

Tell Epson. 

> but the 2200/2100 printers are not
> professional printers -

Why not? Because of the price of the printer or the size they output? Pro's use 
them. You don't need a 9600 if you're printing 11x14's for your portfolio.

Andrew,

you are making it sound like they have to invent the wheel all over again. It 
boils down to writing a driver and profiles and picking up a decent mono 
inkset or two and filling a few carts - which they don't even have to stock in 
every Costco and Staples around either. They can of course pick any of their 
printers, including the 2200, to profile.  

Imagine what they can do with that: they can get a nice jump on the market 
with 7 gray inks and a way to mix cool-to-warm. Since they put the chip there 
to punish us, in the first place, for using aftermarket inks, they might as well 
make a profit from the bw market. 

And, btw, where in planet Epson, should mere mortals write to have their 
voice heard? How long is cloak-and-dagger, cat-and-mouse chasing of 
Epson hardware going to go on?  They have looked upon us as the enemy 
who stole their ink money, instead of reaching out to a segment of the market 
potentially as big as what keeps Ilford and many others alive. Where is 
Japanese niche marketing when we need it? Where are the guys who cloned 
Leica 80 years after its invention to make it  cheaper if not  better<G>...?


Antonis





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "thedigitaldog" <andrew@d...> 
wrote:
> In other words, having a true B&W printer from Epson is NOT a 
technological 
> problem. It's one of cost to put such a product to market.

On 8/3/02 4:21 PM, "antonisphoto" <antonisphoto@...> wrote:

> Where are the guys who cloned
> Leica 80 years after its invention to make it  cheaper if not  better<G>...?

Wow...never thought I would ever read that!

<g>

Robert

PS  I'm not sure I would say better...but it is a nice little toy!...and yes

Leica is to Bessa as Epson is to MIS

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "antonisphoto"
<antonisphoto@y...> 

> you are making it sound like they have to invent the wheel all over
again. 

Not at all. I'm saying the can do it today (yesterday). I'm saying
that in order to 
do this and not charge thousands of dollars for a printer that works
just like a 
2200 but prints only with black ink, Epson has to sell A LOT OF THEM,
and 
unless lots of people make it clear they would buy such a unit,
you'll likely not 
see such a printer. IOW, it has nothing to do with technology. It has
to do with 
bringing a vertical market printer to market.

I>t  boils down to writing a driver and profiles and picking up a
decent mono 
> inkset or two and filling a few carts - which they don't even have
to stock in 
> every Costco and Staples around either. 

In order for Epson to produce this ink set and fill it's ink
cartridges, they have 
to make a heck of a lot to make it worth their while. This is why
very small 
supplies like Cone and Lyson are where they are today. They are a
niche 
market. Epson isn't a niche market supplier. 

> Imagine what they can do with that: they can get a nice jump on the
market 
> with 7 gray inks and a way to mix cool-to-warm. Since they put the
chip 
there 
> to punish us, in the first place, for using aftermarket inks, they
might as well 
> make a profit from the bw market. 

Epson isn't in the printer business. It's in the ink and paper
business. I think 
we all realize that. The chip is annoying but it's there for the same
reason you 
have serial numbers or dongles for software.

Mitch,

Surely the reason for the 1280/90 and 2100/2200 dual numbering is not just
the different power supplies in the US, but the different paper sizes, so
the absorbent pads for the waste ink overspray (in borderless printing) have
to be in different places, and the driver has to work to these different
sizes. The 1270 was the same everywhere, wasn't it, but when borderless
printing came in with the 1280/90 the dual numbering started.

Or have I got this wrong?

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Alland" <malland@...>

>
> Actually, I don't think that Epson's product momenclature under which the
1280 is the 1290, and the 2200 the 2100, outside of North America makes
senswe either, as it leads to a lot of confusion among users communicating
internationally on matter such as drivers, for example. If Epson wanted to
make sure that users would not buy a product in one markeet than would
require a power transformer, they could have caleld the products the
1280/220v and 1280/110v instead. I don't like Epson's approach to this
matter: I bought an 1160 in Paris where I spent six months last year and
took it to Bangkok only to find thatn the Epson warrantee is only valid in
the country where the product is purchased.

As we say down South, Epson may end up with a pig in a poke over this 
2100/2200 gray balancer. Epson USA through their consultants are telling 
us the GB is the "software from hell." Yet on other forums people in the 
US that have used it are saying it's not that hard to understand and it 
is a nice feature to have. As long as these reports keep coming - and I 
suspect they will for awhile - the fans will be kept flamed and people 
will want it and be torked off that it doesn't come with the 2200.

Quite frankly Epson seems to have steeped in it on this issue and IMO 
they deserve all the aggravation and negative publicity. There seem 
ready to string Epson up over at Dpreview.

Truman

Mitch Alland wrote:

>
>
> Actually, I don't think that Epson's product momenclature under which 
> the 1280 is the 1290, and the 2200 the 2100, outside of North America 
> makes senswe either, as it leads to a lot of confusion among users 
> communicating internationally on matter such as drivers, for example. 
> If Epson wanted to make sure that users would not buy a product in one 
> markeet than would require a power transformer, they could have caleld 
> the products the 1280/220v and 1280/110v instead. I don't like Epson's 
> approach to this matter: I bought an 1160 in Paris where I spent six 
> months last year and took it to Bangkok only to find thatn the Epson 
> warrantee is only valid in the country where the product is purchased.
>
> --Mitch/Bangkok

there's also 11x17 instead of A3. Thats why I've stopped using BrightCube -
I need A3 and everytime I write they don't even answer...

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Alland" <malland@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 11:04 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW


> To: From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@...>
>
> >Surely the reason for the 1280/90 and 2100/2200 dual numbering is not
just
> >the different power supplies in the US, but the different paper
> >sizes..
>
> I've seen this explanation, but I wonderf whether this is really true as
the only paper sizes that are different, are USL and A4. Aren't the rest the
same: Super A3 = 13x19. etc.?
>
> On anther subject, I think that it's strange that the US market coontinues
to use the USL size rather than A4 for photographic inkjet paper considering
that most users print from 35 milllimiter, and that the A4 paper, being
almost of the same proportion of width to length, allows a larger full frame
print. Of sourse it's a holdover from office use of USL, but makes little
sense.
>
> --Mitch/Bank
>
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

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

thedigitaldog wrote:

> The fact that we felt unanimously that the product was far 
>too complex for non pros let alone pros, the product manager decided that GB 
>wasn't a good fix for most 2200 users. 
>
>  
>
So what FIX is EPSON recommending for US users?  I haven't seen them 
recommend ANY fix, much less admit the metamerism..

> You also assume that the 2200 differs in how it 
>operates from the 9600 or 7600 but it's simply a smaller version and our 
>comments were also viewed by the product manager of the pro line. There 
>isn't much difference in the 2200 from the 9600 other than size and price. 
>  
>
I expected it uses the same basic printer engine.. As well as the same 
basic driver..

>  
>
>>You are doing exactly what I said was likely, representing specific 
>>vested interests... 
>>    
>>
>
>Yes indeed, at least a specific mindset! Can you imagine how well a product 
>would be if it was designed by committee? 
>
Of course, this wasn't product design, this was after the fact advice.. 
 Perhaps EPSON should INSTEAD ask the group what IS needed in the next 
generation of hardware..?

>The advice given was from a very 
>specific slant. You assume that the 2200 was designed for the same group of 
>people that might go into Office Depot for a color printer. 
>
Never did I..

>  
>
>>and if you go back through my posts you'll see that 
>>I said that was to be expected , but was not therefore axiomatically 
>>negative. The vested interest NEED to be represented.. BUT, as much as 
>>is possible, they ALL need to be represented.. 
>>    
>>
>
>Product design by committee for pro users, and morons?
>
No, its a prosumer product so, by definition, pros and consumers..

> I wish that could be 
>done. Somewhere the product has to have a focus. In the case of the 2200, 
>the focus was made.
>  
>
Which is pros or consumers?

If it was pros as you would argue, then why are large outlets getting 
wholesale shipping preference over ProFocus dealers?  That would seem to 
contradict EPSON's own marketing which presents it as both a pro and 
consumer offering., Remind me to cc Chris Bair on this one.

>  
>
>>And eliminating an already developed piece of software from a shipping 
>>product accomplishes that HOW?
>>    
>>
>
>Foremost, it insures a good user experience. Do you really think every piece 
>of software ever developed sees the light of day once real users hammer on 
>it? 
>  
>
Not at all.. However, if it makes tweaking prints to display lighting 
easier for one segment of the target prosumer audience, why NOT include it?

>  
>
>>I assume you aren't going to tell me that the EPSON decision-makers are 
>>so wholly irrational that you felt that by having EPSON USA NOT ship the 
>>Grey balancer that EPSON would in the next go round not "waste their 
>>time" on software other than the driver?
>>    
>>
>
>That was our advice to them. 
>

The advice is a different issue than using not shipping the product as a 
way to drive home the issue..

>>OR did you argue that the money saved in tech support calls for a piece 
>>of "software from hell" could be used to build better drivers for 10K 
>>printers sold on the USA market.. ? 
>>    
>>
>
>We did that and told them ALL the printers need better drivers. 
>
>So you have access to a large format Epson printer? Have you ever wanted to 
>make two 8x10 prints, one next to the other on a 44 inch printer? You can't do 
>it unless you gang them both up in the same canvas in Photoshop. That's 
>insane. You should be able to have software to do this AUTOMATICALLY so 
>you don't print out 34 inches of wasted paper just to get an 8x10 print. 
>
Hey, I hate the clunkiness of the epson driver more than anyone.. Roll 
printing in wide format and with some of the prosumer printers, BUT you 
have to place the images on a single PShop canvas to print them 
economically..  I'll certainly admit its retarded, but I always figured 
it was another way for EPSON to get us to use lots of consumables.. ;-) 
 Since they cost-shift to those consumables it's not an illogical 
assumption.

> If you 
>had any idea of what has ended up in Adobe Photoshop over the years from 
>direct involvement with some of our group, you'd be very impressed. 
>  
>
I came to printing from a mixed background, a good deal of my background 
is in IT, and I've beta'd and had ideas incorporated in shipping 
graphics software as well... So, I'm not sure how surprised I might be.. 
That's not to say I wouldn't be impressed..

>  
>
>>So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you more 
>>R&D how? 
>>    
>>
>
>It gets the resources that would be used to continue with GB off of GB onto 
>something far more useful. 
>  
>
OK.. So, since EPSON USA is saving that $$ how do USA consumers see that 
savings returned to them instead of just to EPSON USA profits?

>  
>
>>HUH? You're becoming irrational... If you think the 2200 will be their 
>>last prosumer entry I might suggest you need a shot of thorazine to stop 
>>whatever delusions you are having..
>>    
>>
>
>Did I say that? I said that by moving resources from GB, those resources can 
>be used for more important needs. 
>  
>

You DID say we perhaps wouldn't get a better printer than the 2200 
because the funds were used to support GB..  What bothers me is that 
EPSON chops the software from the US product but will keep releasing 
product in the US market last.  I seriously doubt that  American 
consumers will be the beneficiaries, with any primacy over other 
markets.  Just as a quick check, if anyone knows the GB and US list 
prices, feel free to enlighten me as to whether we get to pay 
significantly less in the us for all these 2200 savings..

>  
>
>>What I DID suggest was that it is 
>>impossible for individuals with vested interests to leave them at the 
>>conference room door -- the reality is those interests will define the 
>>range of your real world experiences.. 
>>    
>>
>
>Perhaps you can convince Epson that your expertise in this area is such that 
>next time such a group is assembled (and it will be), you can be included. 
>
1)    There is that kind of bravery anywhere in the EPSON USA corporate 
decision making structure.. Trust me on that..  They aren't going to 
take someone into the committee who refuses to simply accept a priori as 
a ground rule that the marketing model they have is axiomatic.

2)    I had a good number of friends from Japan while studying at 
Berkeley (I spent about 1/2 my free time with non-US students - and one 
whom I miss almost every time I think of her --- that's another story 
though). One thing I learned was how strongly ingrained the Japanese 
tendency is to avoid direct contradiction, direct conflict, and to 
refuse to admit a problem exists in the current iteration of a product 
(while promising the next go will be better)..  My contentious style 
would not endear me to EPSON's home office either, I think..

Of course, if they talk to the right people at EPSON USA, they might 
find that I kept some secrets safe for the 2 years since the 1270 was 
introduced... Including some marketing decisions...  Let's just say some 
of the stuff I learned then, showed a clear disjuncture in Japan's 
understanding of the realities of the US market..

>But 
>such decisions will not be made casually or by committee. I think it would be a 
>very bad idea to have such groups assembled based on a users ability to 
>plug a USB cable into a printer.
>
LOL cute...

> I'm not saying you are such a person but 
>rather that there are only so many people that can be brought together to 
>advice a company and that these people have to have some level of expertise 
>and an idea of what a product is aimed to do 
>
to go back to your post, EPSON told you who the target market was... not 
the other way around..  I'd say the onus is on EPSON to provide that 
info, not for committee members to bring psychic abilities to the table.

>and have an idea of the user 
>base. 
>
>  
>
Since we're talking about user base,  any chance they included any of 
the PPA people who certified the 1270 as a "Professional Tool"  two 
years ago.  I would hope that after being let down once before that 
EPSON wouldn't ask them to serve on this committee (if so, it's more 
likely as an attempt to curry favor and perhaps get another certification)..

>I'm frustrated by people who suggest that others shouldn't 
>purchase a 2200 because the software wasn't placed in the box in the U.S. 
>and discount a great printer that does a fine job without said software. 
>  
>
You might also be frustrated by people who have a voice within the 
target market so strongly criticizing the opinion of your group.. I have 
no idea what the committee told EPSON, but if it was, "no-one" will miss 
the software, your committee has already been proven wrong.. No?

>The bottom line is GB isn't in the U.S. shipping product and it is elsewhere. 
>Let's see how well it does in other markets.
>
>
>  
>
That's certainly fair, and I thank you for your measured and thoughtful 
response..

Even if we still disagree on some salient points, you've certainly 
earned my respect (not that it'll get you much) for taking the time to 
answer my post in a professional manner..

Keith



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

Mitch Alland wrote:

>IMHO Andrew has conclusively shown in his postings that the Gray Balancer is not good software. 
>
Ummm.. Mitch we usually agree, but that's just not so..  He has 
demosntrated knowledge and has invited people to accept the committee's 
(and his determination that the software is a dog)  that is no more a 
conclusive showing of anything other than opinion, than is the opinion 
of those who make judgments of print quuality without seeing prints... 
 Andrew has not demonstrated that the software is a dog, just that it 
was a standard marketing decision wehere costs were cut in one place to 
benefit another goal..

>Moreover, having seen Andrew's postings on various forums for several years, the charge of his views being driven by vested interests are patent nonsense. Having read Andrew's postings on this subject, I don't have "Gray Balancer envy." On the contrary, the panel in which Andrew participated seems to have saved North American 2200 users from wasting time and materials on battling a lousy piece of software.
>  
>
No-one would be forced to use it..

>Forums such as this one are fairly international, and North American users knew right away that the Gray Balancer was being offered in the UK
>  
>
You think EPSON might have remembered how quickly users in the EU, NZ, 
Pommeyland, and South Asia found out about the orange shift, the EPSON 
USA policies, and soon wee asking for their own refunds..

> .
>
>Actually, I don't think that Epson's product momenclature under which the 1280 is the 1290, and the 2200 the 2100, outside of North America makes senswe either, as it leads to a lot of confusion among users communicating internationally on matter such as drivers, for example. If Epson wanted to make sure that users would not buy a product in one markeet than would require a power transformer, they could have caleld the products the 1280/220v and 1280/110v instead. I don't like Epson's approach to this matter: I bought an 1160 in Paris where I spent six months last year and took it to Bangkok only to find thatn the Epson warrantee is only valid in the country where the product is purchased.
>
>  
>
Actually, that's very common of the photographic market,,,


Keith
 
 



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

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

From: "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 7:14 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Karl Wolz" <wolzphoto@w...>
> wrote:

> >While I appreciate that one would want the
> > capability of printing both color and B&W, if one's main reason for
> > having the printer were for B&W use, why not use grey-tone inks and not
> > be concerned with color shifts?
>
> That would be the best solution for B&W only printing.

Before Epson launched the new Ultrachrome printers there was some
speculation what would be a nice printer for colour and B&W. With unlimited
head numbers one can get anything frome Hexachrome to Hexatone.
However a six head printer with today's variable, small droplet sizes could
have been a CMY+3K printer. In monochrome the 3K's would have been
sufficient for a good quality B&W. Monochrome on the Ultrachrome printers
means only black ink printing. Someone measured the grey of the 9600 with a
spectrometer and it is quite yellow he wrote, not the right start for a B&W
printer. If Epson thinks of a follow up with other ink hues for the
Ultrachrome models then this CMY3K could be a nice concept, the seventh head
used  for an extra
ultramarine kind of) blue. The lightest K could run to 0% and replace part
of the more visible full CMY dots in composite greys, something that the
existing extra grey ink doesn't do now.

Ernst

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

From: "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:54 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ernst Dinkla" <e.dinkla@c...>
wrote:
>
> > Before Epson launched the new Ultrachrome printers there was some
> > speculation what would be a nice printer for colour and B&W. With
unlimited
> > head numbers one can get anything frome Hexachrome to Hexatone.
>
> Let's be a bit more accurate here. The 2200 will never print Hexachrome
until
> Epson produces an Orange and Green ink. If you want a quick look at what
> Hexacrhome is (a Pantone product) go to http://www.pantone.de/content/
> Pages/HexExpA.htm.

Speculating about an unknown printer with unlimited head numbers before any
signal of the 2200 had arrived.
That is how I interprete the sentence when I read my text again.

It is quite easy to get Orange and Green ink from for example Mediastreet.
But so far no Epson model is used for Hexachrome and no Epson driver written
for Hexachrome, not even by third party RIP developers.
Don't know what the reason for that is but certainly not because Epson
couldn't design a printer like that.
Whether the firmware in the existing Epsons doesn't allow it I don't know
but I don't think so. The C and LC, the M and LM split is done in the driver
and not in the printer firmware. Most likely a license agreement between
Epson and the wide format inkjet manufacturers that make Hexachrome printers
and need the Epson heads.
Like the quite obvious size limitation of 44" that Epson doesn't pass. That
RIP manufacturers don't break the line is more puzzling, but they need the
printer information from all the companies.


> > However a six head printer with today's variable, small droplet sizes
could
> > have been a CMY+3K printer. In monochrome the 3K's would have been
> > sufficient for a good quality B&W. Monochrome on the Ultrachrome
printers
> > means only black ink printing. Someone measured the grey of the 9600
with
> a
> > spectrometer and it is quite yellow he wrote, not the right start for a
B&W
> > printer.
>
> Yes and this is true of the 2200. If you ask the driver to ONLY give you
the two
> black inks, the output is very warm. It's a nice look but far from
neutral. The
> black only option with the 2200 (and 9600) isn't anything like what we had
as
> an option with the older printers where you'd get real neutral output
using just
> the black ink (but lose quality due to the loss of the other inks).

The 2200 driver has a setting that only gives both the black inks ?  I
thought that it would be like the 9600 and on that one there's only one
black ink in monochrome AFAIK.

Ernst

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

From: "thedigitaldog" <andrew@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 9:45 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: News on Epson 2200 Gray Balancer SW


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ernst Dinkla" <e.dinkla@c...>
wrote:
>
> > The 2200 driver has a setting that only gives both the black inks ?  I
> > thought that it would be like the 9600 and on that one there's only one
> > black ink in monochrome AFAIK.
>
> Like the older drivers you can ask to use only black ink but you use both
> blacks in this case and get a very warm appearing print.

Strange, Paul Krause, here in the Netherlands, who tested an early 7600 for
Epson and now has a 9600 claimed it only used the normal K in monochrome.
Epson Mac driver.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image
Service" <
editor@p...> wrote:

> So what FIX is EPSON recommending for US users?  I haven't seen
them 
> recommend ANY fix, much less admit the metamerism..

1. Use the ICC profiles that ship with the printer. 
2. Use an Adjustment layer if necessary (you don't use profiles, you
use non 
standard Epson papers which you are basically on your own). 
3. Build custom ICC profiles (any paper you wish or Epson's papers). 

Lastly, no fix is needed because nothing is broken. The entire line
of Epson 
printers are 6-7 COLOR printers. They do not at this time offer a B&W
only 
solution. Epson never claimed that these printers make perfect, dead
nuts 
neutral B&W prints. They can get very close (depending on steps 1-3
above) 
and for most users, the neutrality is going to be quite acceptable.
If you want a 
printer that can output perfectly neutral grays, it ain't going to
print color too. 

> I expected it uses the same basic printer engine.. As well as the
same 
> basic driver..

Yes, as far as I understand. Same heads and ink set. Same driver with
minor 
tweaks in certain look up tables. Different paper handling in some
cases. 


>  Perhaps EPSON should INSTEAD ask the group what IS needed in the 
next 
> generation of hardware..?

They asked, we told them. The two days with Epson (including four
Japanise 
engenners) wasn't totally devoted to Gray Balancer. 

> No, its a prosumer product so, by definition, pros and consumers..

More reason why GB was removed. 
 
> Which is pros or consumers?

Prosumers. But Pro's use the printer too. 


> Not at all.. However, if it makes tweaking prints to display
lighting 
> easier for one segment of the target prosumer audience, why NOT
include 
it?

If it did this... IF!


> Hey, I hate the clunkiness of the epson driver more than anyone.. 

As do we. So the focus needs to be on the driver! The Gray Balancer
is a 
band aid and not a good one. Our message to Epson Japan was to FOCUS. 
Fix the driver. Don't put any more time, money or energy into GB. How
many 
band aids do users want for the driver? 

>I'll certainly admit its retarded, but I always figured 
> it was another way for EPSON to get us to use lots of consumables..
;-) 

Possible. But if users spent the fraction of their time asking for
ganging 
capabilities IN the driver instead of yelling about a band aid
utility that doesn't 
solve as many problems as it creates, maybe Epson would do this.
Users 
need to focus like the companies they want changes from. 

> >>So, again, I ask, by eliminating the grey balancer that gets you
more 
> >>R&D how? 

Simple, Focus. Epson like any other company doesn't have unlimited
people 
or budgets to create software for their hardware. In fact, I'd go out
on a limb 
and say nearly all companies that make hardware haven't got very good 
software. Software is always an after thought. So if Epson has 10,000
man 
hour to spend on printer software, wouldn't you rather have them
spend most 
or all on the driver? What if the GB took 6000 man hours from the R&D 
budget? It's not worth it. 

None of the consultants every said the GB didn't work at all. We told
them:

1. It's far too complex compared to other similar products (like the
GB made by 
Kodak). This isn't to say some reviewer can't figure out the product
despite a 
200+ PDF manual. But most users will end up calling tech support or
giving 
up and that reflects badly on Epson. 
2. It's a band aid. Focus on the driver not band aids.
3. There are better, quicker ways to get closer to neutral goal than
GB. 



> You DID say we perhaps wouldn't get a better printer than the 2200 
> because the funds were used to support GB..  

No, I don't believe I said that and if so, that wasn't my intent. I
KNOW about 
printers coming down the pick (and I can't say a word). NO question
better 
printers are in the works. That's been Epson's history for years. The
question 
is, will newer printers have the same old tired software driver
because 
resources were spent on band aids or will a newer driver be
developed? 

>What bothers me is that 
> EPSON chops the software from the US product but will keep
releasing 
> product in the US market last.  

Believe it or not, there is a LOT more testing for the US market and
that is the 
reason we get the stuff last. It isn't done to upset the US market. 

>One thing I learned was how strongly ingrained the Japanese 
> tendency is to avoid direct contradiction, direct conflict, and to 
> refuse to admit a problem exists in the current iteration of a
product 
> (while promising the next go will be better)..  My contentious
style 
> would not endear me to EPSON's home office either, I think..

I know that all too well having spent several meetings with these
kinds of 
people. 

> Of course, if they talk to the right people at EPSON USA, they
might 
> find that I kept some secrets safe for the 2 years since the 1270
was 
> introduced... Including some marketing decisions...  Let's just say
some 
> of the stuff I learned then, showed a clear disjuncture in Japan's 
> understanding of the realities of the US market..

New product manager and a different slant since the 1270. 

> Since we're talking about user base,  any chance they included any
of 
> the PPA people who certified the 1270 as a "Professional Tool"  two 
> years ago. 

I don't believe anyone was associated in any way with PPA!

In a message dated 8/3/02 5:42:44 PM, andrew@... writes:

>>I already have ProfilerPro and a ColorMouse for
>> making 'serious' profiles, but the Gray Balancer from what I have read
>is
>> far simpler than profile-making...
>
>Not at all. Making a profile is far easier. What you need to do is use
>the NEW 
>extended RGB target for ProfilerMaker instead of the 2.88 target

Read carefully, Andrew; it says ProfilerPRO, not ProfileMaker Pro... so he 
already has 729 patch capability, if he is willing to read that many patches 
manually.

C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
CDTobie@...

on 8/5/02 9:12 AM, CDTobie@... at CDTobie@... wrote:

> Read carefully, Andrew; it says ProfilerPRO, not ProfileMaker Pro... so he
> already has 729 patch capability, if he is willing to read that many patches
> manually.

You are correct. I'd highly recommend the 729 patch however.

Andrew Rodney

Andrew - or anyone else with a knowledgeable opinion,
 
Dumb (hope not) newbie question here:
 
I'm pretty sure that I've seen grey-tone inks available for Epson
printers.  Wouldn't using these inks prevent at least some of the
problems that you have been discussing in both this thread and the one
that concerns metamerism?  While I appreciate that one would want the
capability of printing both color and B&W, if one's main reason for
having the printer were for B&W use, why not use grey-tone inks and not
be concerned with color shifts?
 
Karl Wolz


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Karl Wolz" <wolzphoto@w...> 
wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that I've seen grey-tone inks available for Epson
> printers.  Wouldn't using these inks prevent at least some of the
> problems that you have been discussing in both this thread and the one
> that concerns metamerism?  

Yes but no such inks are made by Epson and only time will tell if such inks 
from 3rd parties will show up with the 2200 which uses 7 individual ink 
cartridges. 



>While I appreciate that one would want the
> capability of printing both color and B&W, if one's main reason for
> having the printer were for B&W use, why not use grey-tone inks and not
> be concerned with color shifts?

That would be the best solution for B&W only printing.

Kari, most of the people on this list ARE using gray inks to print black
and white prints. It is the Digital Black and White The Print List... 

Jerry

> Dumb (hope not) newbie question here:
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I've seen grey-tone inks available for Epson
> printers.  Wouldn't using these inks prevent at least some of the
> problems that you have been discussing in both this thread and the one
> that concerns metamerism?  While I appreciate that one would want the
> capability of printing both color and B&W, if one's main reason for
> having the printer were for B&W use, why not use grey-tone inks and not
> be concerned with color shifts?
> 
> Karl Wolz
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 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
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Kari, I'm Sorry, I didn't finish that thought.  Even the gray inks
(Small Gamut) MIS, Piezo, etc. do experience metamerism to a degree.
Some show much less than others. 

With a proper profile, even the Generations or MIS archival color inks
can make a very acceptable black and white print. But you must have the
color inks/paper profiled. Even then, some images tend to show more
metamerism than others. There isn't much metamerism with Generations or
MIS inks. If you get a great looking neutral print in daylight, it tends
to be just a tad warm in tungsten lighting, but certainly not
objectionable. And of course the paper you use contributes a lot to how
much metamerism you see.

Jerry

thedigitaldog wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image
>Service" <
>editor@p...> wrote:
>  
>
>  
>
>>Hey, I hate the clunkiness of the epson driver more than anyone.. 
>>    
>>
>
>As do we. So the focus needs to be on the driver! The Gray Balancer
>is a 
>band aid and not a good one. Our message to Epson Japan was to FOCUS. 
>Fix the driver. Don't put any more time, money or energy into GB. How
>many 
>band aids do users want for the driver? 
>
>  
>
Sad thing is that reviewers are always complementing the "look" of the 
driver interface..   UGH.. I don't care what it looks like, I don' 
choose a hammer based on which one LOOKS prettiest.. The driver is a 
production tool..

>>I'll certainly admit its retarded, but I always figured 
>>it was another way for EPSON to get us to use lots of consumables..
>>    
>>
>;-) 
>
>Possible. But if users spent the fraction of their time asking for
>ganging 
>capabilities IN the driver instead of yelling about a band aid
>utility that doesn't 
>solve as many problems as it creates, maybe Epson would do this.
>Users 
>need to focus like the companies they want changes from. 
>  
>

I've always agreed with that..

>  
>
>>What bothers me is that 
>>EPSON chops the software from the US product but will keep
>>    
>>
>releasing 
>  
>
>>product in the US market last.  
>>    
>>
>
>Believe it or not, there is a LOT more testing for the US market and
>that is the 
>reason we get the stuff last. It isn't done to upset the US market. 
>  
>
I believe you, I just wanted to hear it explicitly...  I'm sure they 
test more for this market -- a failure here is MUCH less acceptable than 
in many of the other markets and consumers have less brand loyalty here..

>>  Let's just say
>>    
>>
>some 
>  
>
>>of the stuff I learned then, showed a clear disjuncture in Japan's 
>>understanding of the realities of the US market..
>>    
>>
>
>New product manager and a different slant since the 1270. 
>

Any insights you would be willing to share?

>  
>
>>Since we're talking about user base,  any chance they included any
>>    
>>
>of 
>  
>
>>the PPA people who certified the 1270 as a "Professional Tool"  two 
>>years ago. 
>>    
>>
>
>I don't believe anyone was associated in any way with PPA!
>
>  
>
GOOD!  The people there who were involved in the old 1270 "seal of 
approval" were apparently more interested in money and blowing smoke up 
EPSON's skirt than in real product review and approval..

Thanks Andrew..

Keith
 
 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ernst Dinkla" <e.dinkla@c...> wrote:

> Before Epson launched the new Ultrachrome printers there was some
> speculation what would be a nice printer for colour and B&W. With unlimited
> head numbers one can get anything frome Hexachrome to Hexatone.

Let's be a bit more accurate here. The 2200 will never print Hexachrome until 
Epson produces an Orange and Green ink. If you want a quick look at what 
Hexacrhome is (a Pantone product) go to http://www.pantone.de/content/
Pages/HexExpA.htm.

> However a six head printer with today's variable, small droplet sizes could
> have been a CMY+3K printer. In monochrome the 3K's would have been
> sufficient for a good quality B&W. Monochrome on the Ultrachrome printers
> means only black ink printing. Someone measured the grey of the 9600 with 
a
> spectrometer and it is quite yellow he wrote, not the right start for a B&W
> printer. 

Yes and this is true of the 2200. If you ask the driver to ONLY give you the two 
black inks, the output is very warm. It's a nice look but far from neutral. The 
black only option with the 2200 (and 9600) isn't anything like what we had as 
an option with the older printers where you'd get real neutral output using just 
the black ink (but lose quality due to the loss of the other inks).

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Ernst Dinkla" <e.dinkla@c...> wrote:

> The 2200 driver has a setting that only gives both the black inks ?  I
> thought that it would be like the 9600 and on that one there's only one
> black ink in monochrome AFAIK.

Like the older drivers you can ask to use only black ink but you use both 
blacks in this case and get a very warm appearing print.