Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Piezography 3000 moderators!

Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by flyfishingusa2002

Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily 
censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall 
products are being posted? They have promised many times in the past 
that there products are Archival only to be proved the opposite, 
true, their inks produce a nice print for a short while, but leave 
them for a while and the inks FADE. Would you use any of their inks 
for serious commerical work? i.e. for prints that you would sell? I 
certainly would not. My prints with MIS inks are standing the test 
of time, but before long I  predict that Epson will overtake all of 
the current independant ink suppliers with the Ultachrome or 
similar. I am already getting great results with only a little color 
cast. 
I personally believe the likes of Paul Roake and I thank him for all 
of his excellent work.


Barry

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Austin Franklin

Barry,

None of my messages have failed to be posted.  Perhaps the cadre of
sycophants are simply extolling...

I will not it interesting that no one, not even Jon, took a stab at
commenting on my issue with fading and tonal "combining" and adjusting the
tonal curves/image data to account for the fade.  I was very disappointed
that no one commented on it.  It seems like a very important issue to me,
and should be for others, since people spend so much time tweaking their
tonal curves, only to have them altered by fading.

Regards,

Austin
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:16 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!
>
>
> Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily
> censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall
> products are being posted? They have promised many times in the past
> that there products are Archival only to be proved the opposite,
> true, their inks produce a nice print for a short while, but leave
> them for a while and the inks FADE. Would you use any of their inks
> for serious commerical work? i.e. for prints that you would sell? I
> certainly would not. My prints with MIS inks are standing the test
> of time, but before long I  predict that Epson will overtake all of
> the current independant ink suppliers with the Ultachrome or
> similar. I am already getting great results with only a little color
> cast.
> I personally believe the likes of Paul Roake and I thank him for all
> of his excellent work.
>
>
> Barry

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by James Haney

> 
<<<
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "flyfishingusa2002" <tflyfish@...>

Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily
censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall
products are being posted?
> 
>>>


Barry,

As an avid reader of the Piezography 3000 forum as well as this forum It
really annoys me that you would incite ill will with such a bull shit
comment as that.

If you read the forum as often as I and many others do, you would know that
your comment is absurdly ridiculous.

The only reason that the current flurry of positive and supportive posts
have been placed is that one poster bravely stated that everyone seemed to
be blasting Cone editions (both fairly and unfairly) and stuck his neck out
to say that he is at least one of the very satisfied customers. Since that
post last week maybe 10 or so additional posts have been added supporting
the Efforts of John Cone and or Inkjet Mall.

Add to this the fact that Jon has seemed to have a renewed interest in
participating in the forum and by turns, addressing, justifying and
dispelling misinformation about his products, his marketing and the state of
the art in general.

In as much as I feel that the current trend of information sharing is
incredibly healthy and by no means skewed in support of Cone, it is probably
best to leave our own personal conspiracy theories to our selves.


James Haney
(A generally happy user of Piezography)



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

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by flyfishingusa2002

Austin,
There are several unanswered questions regarding Injetmall products 
and the software. 
I have been following the "Combing" issue for a while, since I see 
it a lot in my files.
It is made a lot worse I agree by the fading factor of Inkjetmalls 
inks. 
They have now introduced yet more inks telling us that these fade 
less than the MIS FS inks. Surely that is a addmission that the old 
inks faded and color sifted. In wwhich case they should refund all 
the purchasers of they bad product, I am bitter mainly because I had 
no help from their tech support when I called to complain of the 
Greenies and fading.
The Piezography 3000 forum is like some Jon Cone fan club, posters 
are blinded by the facts, cleary none have read the results of the 
fade tests of their inks, or maybe they do not worry about a print 
lasting for more than a couple of weeks. Injetmall is way more 
expensive than MIS so why bother with them at all?
The software issue is another matter all together, I suspect that it 
is photoshop that is the root cause of the issue, have you tried 
posting on the Adobe forum to see what the adobe techs might say?

Barry


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Barry,
> 
> None of my messages have failed to be posted.  Perhaps the cadre of
> sycophants are simply extolling...
> 
> I will not it interesting that no one, not even Jon, took a stab at
> commenting on my issue with fading and tonal "combining" and 
adjusting the
> tonal curves/image data to account for the fade.  I was very 
disappointed
> that no one commented on it.  It seems like a very important issue 
to me,
> and should be for others, since people spend so much time tweaking 
their
> tonal curves, only to have them altered by fading.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@c...]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:16 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!
> >
> >
> > Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily
> > censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall
> > products are being posted? They have promised many times in the 
past
> > that there products are Archival only to be proved the opposite,
> > true, their inks produce a nice print for a short while, but 
leave
> > them for a while and the inks FADE. Would you use any of their 
inks
> > for serious commerical work? i.e. for prints that you would 
sell? I
> > certainly would not. My prints with MIS inks are standing the 
test
> > of time, but before long I  predict that Epson will overtake all 
of
> > the current independant ink suppliers with the Ultachrome or
> > similar. I am already getting great results with only a little 
color
> > cast.
> > I personally believe the likes of Paul Roake and I thank him for 
all
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > of his excellent work.
> >
> >
> > Barry

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Tina Manley

At 02:01 PM 10/18/02 +0000, you wrote:
>The Piezography 3000 forum is like some Jon Cone fan club, posters
>are blinded by the facts, cleary none have read the results of the
>fade tests of their inks, or maybe they do not worry about a print
>lasting for more than a couple of weeks. Injetmall is way more
>expensive than MIS so why bother with them at all?
>
>Barry


Barry -

No, I'm not reading the results of fade tests.  I'm looking at prints made 
with the original quad-black inks that have been in my window for months 
and comparing them to some that have been stored in the dark.  There is 
only a very slight warming of the inks which I find very pleasant.  I am 
happy with Piezography's original inks, software and my Epson 3000's which 
I have been using constantly since peizography first came out.  I can 
understand Jerry's wanting a colder ink for his landscapes, but the warmer 
original inks are perfect for my people pictures.

I think some people have just had better luck with their printers.  I 
happened to get two very good refurbished 3000's that have never had a clog 
or banding.  I'm still using the original piezo software, not the 
upgrade.  I'm on my fourth set of ink cartridges - they last forever.

I'm not concerned about my prints lasting for hundreds of years.  All 
artwork eventually fades.  I expect my prints to be displayed properly and 
to give people a lot of pleasure for their lifetime.  I'm too busy printing 
and selling photographs to read all of the negative e-mails about 
quad-black printing, but I wrote into the Piezo3000 forum to let Jon know 
that not everybody is unhappy with his products.

Tina

Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Austin Franklin

James,

> If you read the forum as often as I and many others do, you would
> know that
> your comment is absurdly ridiculous.

I disagree that the comment was "absurdly ridiculous".  It was, IMO, a valid
"question", whose speculative conclusion appears to not have been true.

> Add to this the fact that Jon has seemed to have a renewed interest in
> participating in the forum and by turns, addressing, justifying and
> dispelling misinformation about his products, his marketing and
> the state of
> the art in general.

Funny how some people see the same thing differently.  You might be missing
some valid history here.  The original Piezo inks were said to not fade,
period.  We were told that "South facing window" tests showed "virtually no
fading" (my words).  Why was anyone to question that?  Many people reported
fading.  IJM said they didn't see this fading, no matter how hard they tried
(again, my words), though they heard many complain about it...they would not
"acknowledge" the fading, because they said they did not "see" the fading.
Well, it appears that now there is admitted fading of the original
inks...but I haven't heard how they could have "missed" that for two years,
and now, all of a sudden, gee, they admit there IS fading.  Is there a
disconnect on what the word "fade" means, or what degree of "fading" means
there IS "fading"?

Now, let me make this clear, I like the product, except for the fading...and
the banding...and the clogs.  I like it a lot, and have been an avid
supporter of this product for years.  IJM's support and knowledge has been
exceptional.  I don't believe the product would be as good without it.  It
doesn't sit well with me to have been told one thing (no fading), then told
I was imagining it (fading), then told gee, it (fading) exists...with no
explanation of how they simply "didn't see it" in their own tests, and now
do.

I am glad Jon has the time to participate in these forums, though I
"disagree" with him at some turns, I can take his vast experience, and
integrate what I want with my knowledge and only come out ahead, as I do
with any participant of these forums.

I believe IJM made some "mistakes", and I believe people are quite willing
to let this live in the past, but it's hard to do when there are still
"issues" lingering.  I know these "issues" aren't important to everyone, and
IJM may be unwilling to simply deal with these issues, and let the cards
fall where they may.

Regards,

Austin

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Austin Franklin

Hi Tina,

> No, I'm not reading the results of fade tests.  I'm looking at
> prints made
> with the original quad-black inks that have been in my window for months
> and comparing them to some that have been stored in the dark.  There is
> only a very slight warming of the inks which I find very pleasant.

That's most interesting, as I have prints that are VERY faded...in fact,
every one that has been in the sun for more than a couple of weeks, has
severe fading.  Ones that haven't been in the direct sun, are "fine".

A LOT of this obviously is situation dependant, whether it's humidity,
temperature or what, I simply don't know...but obviously the results of
people vary quite a bit.

I know I've received prints from people who claim to have no banding, but I
see banding in the prints...so this is also a "human calibration" issue as
well ;-)

Regards,

Austin

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Tina Manley

At 11:23 AM 10/18/02 -0400, you wrote:

>That's most interesting, as I have prints that are VERY faded...in fact,
>every one that has been in the sun for more than a couple of weeks, has
>severe fading.  Ones that haven't been in the direct sun, are "fine".

That's one of the points people are trying to make.  Who is going to 
display artwork in the direct sun and expect it not to fade!  I'm amazed 
that the ones I have in the window have only slightly warmed.  It's much 
better than I expected.


>A LOT of this obviously is situation dependant, whether it's humidity,
>temperature or what, I simply don't know...but obviously the results of
>people vary quite a bit.

I think the high humidity in the South is very beneficial to the Epson 
3000's, don't know how it affects the inks.


>I know I've received prints from people who claim to have no banding, but I
>see banding in the prints...so this is also a "human calibration" issue as
>well ;-)

Will you be at PhotoExpo?  I'll bring some prints  ;-)

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Todd Flashner

on 10/18/02 11:21 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

>> If you read the forum as often as I and many others do, you would
>> know that
>> your comment is absurdly ridiculous.
> 
> I disagree that the comment was "absurdly ridiculous".  It was, IMO, a valid
> "question", whose speculative conclusion appears to not have been true.

What question, he ASSERTED it was being heavily moderated. I know I was hard
on Cone a few days ago and it got through. Did Barry post a message that got
bounced, or is he just annoyed that there was a respite in the attacks?

Todd

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Austin Franklin

> >> If you read the forum as often as I and many others do, you would
> >> know that
> >> your comment is absurdly ridiculous.
> >
> > I disagree that the comment was "absurdly ridiculous".  It was,
> IMO, a valid
> > "question", whose speculative conclusion appears to not have been true.
>
> What question, he ASSERTED it was being heavily moderated. I know
> I was hard
> on Cone a few days ago and it got through. Did Barry post a
> message that got
> bounced, or is he just annoyed that there was a respite in the attacks?
>
> Todd

Todd,

Here is the original "question" posed by Barry:

"Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily
censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall
products are being posted?"

I believe that is a properly formed question, as it DOES ask a question, and
it does have a question mark at the end of the sentence.  Though, the
question DOES contain an assertion that the group was being "moderated", it
IS a question asking if others have noticed said assertion.  Note, I put
"question" in quotes in my comment.

You must not be busy enough with the baby ;-)

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Jerry Olson

I have given up on piezo inks completely. just too many problems.

Jerry



flyfishingusa2002 wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> Austin,
> There are several unanswered questions regarding Injetmall products
> and the software.
> I have been following the "Combing" issue for a while, since I see
> it a lot in my files.
> It is made a lot worse I agree by the fading factor of Inkjetmalls
> inks.
> They have now introduced yet more inks telling us that these fade
> less than the MIS FS inks. Surely that is a addmission that the old
> inks faded and color sifted. In wwhich case they should refund all
> the purchasers of they bad product, I am bitter mainly because I had
> no help from their tech support when I called to complain of the
> Greenies and fading.
> The Piezography 3000 forum is like some Jon Cone fan club, posters
> are blinded by the facts, cleary none have read the results of the
> fade tests of their inks, or maybe they do not worry about a print
> lasting for more than a couple of weeks. Injetmall is way more
> expensive than MIS so why bother with them at all?
> The software issue is another matter all together, I suspect that it
> is photoshop that is the root cause of the issue, have you tried
> posting on the Adobe forum to see what the adobe techs might say?
> 
> Barry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Barry,
> >
> > None of my messages have failed to be posted.  Perhaps the cadre of
> > sycophants are simply extolling...
> >
> > I will not it interesting that no one, not even Jon, took a stab at
> > commenting on my issue with fading and tonal "combining" and
> adjusting the
> > tonal curves/image data to account for the fade.  I was very
> disappointed
> > that no one commented on it.  It seems like a very important issue
> to me,
> > and should be for others, since people spend so much time tweaking
> their
> > tonal curves, only to have them altered by fading.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@c...]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:16 PM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!
> > >
> > >
> > > Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily
> > > censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall
> > > products are being posted? They have promised many times in the
> past
> > > that there products are Archival only to be proved the opposite,
> > > true, their inks produce a nice print for a short while, but
> leave
> > > them for a while and the inks FADE. Would you use any of their
> inks
> > > for serious commerical work? i.e. for prints that you would
> sell? I
> > > certainly would not. My prints with MIS inks are standing the
> test
> > > of time, but before long I  predict that Epson will overtake all
> of
> > > the current independant ink suppliers with the Ultachrome or
> > > similar. I am already getting great results with only a little
> color
> > > cast.
> > > I personally believe the likes of Paul Roake and I thank him for
> all
> > > of his excellent work.
> > >
> > >
> > > Barry
> 
> 
> 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/

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Carolyn Frayn

> 
> What question, he ASSERTED it was being heavily moderated.

I believe the word used was "censored",  One might say it was an assertion
softened with a question.

Carolyn

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Todd Flashner

> Todd,
> 
> Here is the original "question" posed by Barry:
> 
> "Has anyone noticed that the Piezography 3000 group is now heavily
> censored and that only positive comments about the InjetMall
> products are being posted?"

Shoot, you mean I made a fool of myself AGAIN?

> I believe that is a properly formed question, as it DOES ask a question, and
> it does have a question mark at the end of the sentence.  Though, the
> question DOES contain an assertion that the group was being "moderated", it
> IS a question asking if others have noticed said assertion.  Note, I put
> "question" in quotes in my comment.
> 
> You must not be busy enough with the baby ;-)

Er, ya! You too?

Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Todd Flashner

on 10/18/02 1:07 PM, Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> 
>> 
>> What question, he ASSERTED it was being heavily moderated.
> 
> I believe the word used was "censored",  One might say it was an assertion
> softened with a question.

I guess what I'd like to know is why he asked. Barry, why'd you ask? Did you
post a question or assertion that got bounced?

Todd

Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by HPA

The people who put prints in windows are your most important customers, they
are the art galleries where your work will be displayed and sold.  The
inability of gallery owners to display digital artwork because of the
humiliation of them fading right before everyone's eyes has led to severe
local marketing problems for digital artists.  Most students with digital
portfolios are now unable to even book coffeeshop shows in the art gallery
district.  
IMHO, the permanence issue is killing sales left and right.  Once the
customer has bought the art, permanence is the only issue.  can a gallery
owner afford to put your art in a quality frame job and have it turn brown
before they even get the bill for the framing?  From the customer's point of
view, is spending money on artwork a potential investment or a sure-fire
loss?  As an artist, is it acceptable to you for your work to be considered
disposable?

As far as marketing goes, the people who are making money with digital in
this area are the small print for $10-$25 crowd.  Business is very good for
them. If a digital print is priced at $10-$25 per print, galleries are
having no problem selling them, it is ok if they are made with disappearing
ink.   As far as large format prints go, there was a huge demand for them
last year, but that evaporated about five months ago.  I thought I was going
to have to close the archival printing part of my printing business, but
orders since then are back up to 2000 levels.  I attribute the 'comeback' in
archival fiber prints to be a reaction to a general fear of digital in the
marketplace.  Permanence is the only reason that digital is not doing better
as a medium in the marketplace today.  every disappointed customer will lead
to bad PR for digital artists every time the casual conversation turns to
art buying experiences.  It will be a long time before these buyers (or
their friends) get taken again.

Art gallery owners are loathe to have their reputation for integrity and
quality (which is their only real asset) hurt by digital art.  They are
better off selling sculpture, oil paintings, or archival fiber.  The way
things are going, that would be the most prudent choice for them to make
now. 

Tom Robinson
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>> That's most interesting, as I have prints that are VERY faded...in fact,
>> every one that has been in the sun for more than a couple of weeks, has
>> severe fading.  Ones that haven't been in the direct sun, are "fine".
> 
> That's one of the points people are trying to make.  Who is going to
> display artwork in the direct sun and expect it not to fade!  I'm amazed
> that the ones I have in the window have only slightly warmed.  It's much
> better than I expected.

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Lawrence Smith

On 10/18/02 3:59 PM, "HPA" <tom@...> wrote:

> IMHO, the permanence issue is killing sales left and right.  Once the
> customer has bought the art, permanence is the only issue.  can a gallery
> owner afford to put your art in a quality frame job and have it turn brown
> before they even get the bill for the framing?


For this very reason  I'm only using my inkjet printers to produce color
work for gallery sales.  Until this gets sorted out B&W inkjets are on hold.
No since wasting money AND ruining reputations .

Lawrence

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

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Lawrence Smith

On 10/18/02 5:32 PM, "Lawrence Smith" <lsmith@...> wrote:

> No since wasting money AND ruining reputations .


Darn spell checker..  That would be  'sense'...

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

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Tina Manley

At 12:59 PM 10/18/02 -0700, you wrote:
>The people who put prints in windows are your most important customers, they
>are the art galleries where your work will be displayed and sold.  The
>inability of gallery owners to display digital artwork because of the
>humiliation of them fading right before everyone's eyes has led to severe
>local marketing problems for digital artists.  Most students with digital
>portfolios are now unable to even book coffeeshop shows in the art gallery
>district.


Did you worry about this with silver-based prints on fiber?  They will also 
fade quickly if they are displayed in direct sunlight.  So will 
watercolors.  So will oil painting if they are left in the sun and 
heat.  Reputable galleries know this so they do not display artwork in 
direct sunlight.

I repeat - My prints have not faded at all when displayed correctly.

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Austin Franklin

> Will you be at PhotoExpo?  I'll bring some prints  ;-)

No, but I'll be at B.D.'s, so please do bring prints!  I'll bring my loupe
;-)

Regards,

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Kevin Gulstene

Tom,

The conclusions I have drawn from similar experiences are quite  
different.  I think the 'argument by exaggeration'  you've mad is not  
only flawed but adds fuel to the misrepresentation of digital prints.

My own view is different in two main areas.

Firstly, I have an extensive collection of fine art (more than $,000  
and less the $,000,000) and I am don't place any of it, with the  
exceptions of my three year olds efforts, in a window or in direct  
sunlight.  I bought it because it moved me and I take elementary steps  
to protect it.

Secondly, the life blood of a gallery is not reputation, it is elitism.  
  Gallery owners/representative are, IMO, much more concerned that a  
potential client will equate the term 'inkjet' with something mass  
produced, a commodity, or something they could do themselves than they  
are about longevity.  If you are selling in the same gallery as  
sculpture, or oil paintings then you _know_ you are going to fighting  
the  uniqueness battle.

Perhaps you were just venting.  In that case I've been reeled into the  
boat needlessly.  Shake the hook and put me back in the water.

Other comments are below.

On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 12:59 PM, HPA wrote:

> The people who put prints in windows are your most important  
> customers, they
> are the art galleries where your work will be displayed and sold.  The
> inability of gallery owners to display digital artwork because of the
> humiliation of them fading right before everyone's eyes has led to  
> severe
> local marketing problems for digital artists.
That is silly.  No prints I have ever made or seen fade before my eyes  
-- literally or figuratively.  I think it is irresponsible to make  
comments that could lead people to that conclusion
> Most students with digital
> portfolios are now unable to even book coffeeshop shows in the art  
> gallery
> district.
Most student I know find enormous resistance no mater what media their  
prints are on.
> IMHO, the permanence issue is killing sales left and right.  Once the
> customer has bought the art, permanence is the only issue.  can a  
> gallery
> owner afford to put your art in a quality frame job and have it turn  
> brown
> before they even get the bill for the framing?
More sanctimonious silliness.
> From the customer's point of
> view, is spending money on artwork a potential investment or a  
> sure-fire
> loss?  As an artist, is it acceptable to you for your work to be  
> considered
> disposable?
Collectors are a diverse group.  Most collect because they have an  
affinity for a certain type of art.  Some collect for prestige, some  
collect just so they can look at it, and some will collect as an  
investment.  The investor is probably unlikely to buy an inkjet print.   
But then again if you are investing for appreciation, they are other  
art forms that will appreciate better that photography and they may not  
even be in the market.
>
> As far as marketing goes, the people who are making money with digital  
> in
> this area are the small print for $10-$25 crowd.  Business is very  
> good for
> them. If a digital print is priced at $10-$25 per print, galleries are
> having no problem selling them, it is ok if they are made with  
> disappearing
> ink.
Disappearing ink?  I know you're just pulling my leg now.
> As far as large format prints go, there was a huge demand for them
> last year, but that evaporated about five months ago.  I thought I was  
> going
> to have to close the archival printing part of my printing business,  
> but
> orders since then are back up to 2000 levels.  I attribute the  
> 'comeback' in
> archival fiber prints to be a reaction to a general fear of digital in  
> the
> marketplace.  Permanence is the only reason that digital is not doing  
> better
> as a medium in the marketplace today.  every disappointed customer  
> will lead
> to bad PR for digital artists every time the casual conversation turns  
> to
> art buying experiences.
Do you know any customers, personally, who are disappointed because  
_they_ saw fading of properly mounted and displayed inkjet prints?   
What were they printed on, how were they printed, how were they  
displayed.  I am still looking for something more than urban myth.  A  
real customer who bought a real print, displayed it properly and then  
said, hey, this looks like crap now ( or even this looks different now).
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> It will be a long time before these buyers (or
> their friends) get taken again.
>
> Art gallery owners are loathe to have their reputation for integrity  
> and
> quality (which is their only real asset) hurt by digital art.  They are
> better off selling sculpture, oil paintings, or archival fiber.  The  
> way
> things are going, that would be the most prudent choice for them to  
> make
> now.
>
> Tom Robinson
>
>>> That's most interesting, as I have prints that are VERY faded...in  
>>> fact,
>>> every one that has been in the sun for more than a couple of weeks,  
>>> has
>>> severe fading.  Ones that haven't been in the direct sun, are "fine".
>>
>> That's one of the points people are trying to make.  Who is going to
>> display artwork in the direct sun and expect it not to fade!  I'm  
>> amazed
>> that the ones I have in the window have only slightly warmed.  It's  
>> much
>> better than I expected.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Home Selling? Try Us!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>
>

claims that digital sales plummet

2002-10-18 by Bill Agee

At 12:59 PM -0700 10/18/02, HPA wrote:
>The people who put prints in windows are your most important customers, they
>are the art galleries where your work will be displayed and sold.  The
>inability of gallery owners to display digital artwork because of the
>humiliation of them fading right before everyone's eyes has led to severe
>local marketing problems for digital artists.  Most students with digital
>portfolios are now unable to even book coffeeshop shows in the art gallery
>district. 
>IMHO, the permanence issue is killing sales left and right.  Once the
>customer has bought the art, permanence is the only issue.  can a gallery
>owner afford to put your art in a quality frame job and have it turn brown
>before they even get the bill for the framing?  From the customer's point of
>view, is spending money on artwork a potential investment or a sure-fire
>loss?  As an artist, is it acceptable to you for your work to be considered
>disposable?
>
>As far as marketing goes, the people who are making money with digital in
>this area are the small print for $10-$25 crowd.  Business is very good for
>them. If a digital print is priced at $10-$25 per print, galleries are
>having no problem selling them, it is ok if they are made with disappearing
>ink.   As far as large format prints go, there was a huge demand for them
>last year, but that evaporated about five months ago.  I thought I was going
>to have to close the archival printing part of my printing business, but
>orders since then are back up to 2000 levels.  I attribute the 'comeback' in
>archival fiber prints to be a reaction to a general fear of digital in the
>marketplace.  Permanence is the only reason that digital is not doing better
>as a medium in the marketplace today.  every disappointed customer will lead
>to bad PR for digital artists every time the casual conversation turns to
>art buying experiences.  It will be a long time before these buyers (or
>their friends) get taken again.
>
>Art gallery owners are loathe to have their reputation for integrity and
>quality (which is their only real asset) hurt by digital art.  They are
>better off selling sculpture, oil paintings, or archival fiber.  The way
>things are going, that would be the most prudent choice for them to make
>now.
>
>Tom Robinson
>

Tom,

While I have to assume your comments are well intended, I think they 
are a bit overstated.

Just for starters you haven't qualified just what kind of inks these 
"students with digital portfolio's" are using. There are all kinds of 
inks and paper combinations out there...if you mean dye inks on 
typewriter paper or newsprint, maybe I would understand your 
comments, however most serious professional players are using pigment 
inks on archival paper. That is what this forum is all about. We 
don't want them to fade "before the customer gets the bill for the 
framing."

Also, who in business today can deal with the $10-$25 print price?. 
My absolute minimum would be $100 for a small unframed print sold 
through a gallery...for which they would collect $180-$200.  I sell 
40x60 prints direct from my studio with no middle man for $3500-4500 
mounted on canvas.   Professionals in this business aren't dealing 
with swap meet art. Also, clients are buying the image and the 
reputation of the photographer...the media is part of it, but 
certainly a smaller part.  When I was in art school students would 
sell drawings that took several hours for $10...they were happy to 
make some money for beer or art supplies.  Their overhead is not the 
same as someone trying to run a profitable business.  Many live at 
home or are subsidized by parents..

I certainly agree with you that some people have given digital a bad 
name.  I have seen people selling color xerox prints mounted on cheap 
mount board and telling people only that they are "photographs", 
thereby leaving the impression that they will at least last for 15-20 
years as today's "C" technology is able to deal with.  But haven't we 
seen some sloppy/ill-informed/unscrupulous photographers selling the 
sacrosanct silver gelatin prints that were not washed or fixed 
properly?

Truth in labeling is the only way to go.  I use the Wilhelm estimates 
when representing my own work.  I also tell people that fine art 
cannot be displayed in direct sunlight. More than that I can't and 
won't do.

I could go on, but I think you can see that you were discussing 
apples and I am discussing oranges.

Bill Agee

-- 

bill agee studio
capistrano beach, ca / laguna beach, ca

http://www.redsilver.com

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-18 by Austin Franklin

Kevin,

> Do you know any customers, personally, who are disappointed because
> _they_ saw fading of properly mounted and displayed inkjet prints?
> What were they printed on, how were they printed, how were they
> displayed.  I am still looking for something more than urban myth.  A
> real customer who bought a real print, displayed it properly and then
> said, hey, this looks like crap now ( or even this looks different now).

I believe there are two issues with what you say.  First is, we were told
that there was NO fading in South window tests...  My experience shows
differently that these inks DO fade.  Second, people who use these inks ARE
afraid of "selling" (even giving away) their works for fear of fading, real
of mere apprehension.

Of course I don't endorse people putting any artwork in direct sunlight, but
some people have specific places in a house that they want a particular
piece, and it may, at some time, be hit by direct sunlight for some number
of hours.  I have a Fairchild in such a spot, it is a large painting, and
this really is the only spot.  It gets late day direct sun...and honestly,
I've seen no fading at all, and if you now Fairchild at all, you'd know his
pieces are very colorful.  I have a Piezo print next to it...and it's
noticeably faded, and it hasn't even been there 6 months.

Regards,

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Fading Reality was Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Kevin Gulstene

Austin,

> Kevin,
>
>> Do you know any customers, personally, who are disappointed because
>> _they_ saw fading of properly mounted and displayed inkjet prints?
>> What were they printed on, how were they printed, how were they
>> displayed.  I am still looking for something more than urban myth.  A
>> real customer who bought a real print, displayed it properly and then
>> said, hey, this looks like crap now ( or even this looks different  
>> now).
>
> I believe there are two issues with what you say.  First is, we were  
> told
> that there was NO fading in South window tests...  My experience shows
> differently that these inks DO fade.
This is an issue with a vendor's representations to you and others.   
There is a pretty clear consensus that they exceeded the bounds of  
acceptable/normal/usual marketing hype.  I don't see how that is  
relevant to my comments except that it is background and fuel for the  
apocalyptic views held by some.
> Second, people who use these inks ARE
> afraid of "selling" (even giving away) their works for fear of fading,  
> real
> of mere apprehension.
That is my point exactly.  If I read messages like Tom's and  had no  
other experience with this technology I would leave thinking I wouldn't  
go near it.  Some days it seems that we spread more misinformation  
ourselves than the naysayers and ludites we that we rail against.

Should we ignore longevity? No
Should we do testing and push the technology further? Yes
Should we ignore the technology because it does not meet the  
expectations of one group of one type of print purchasers? NO
Should we exaggerate the effects, or in some cases, perceived effects,  
among ourselves and others? NO

I think Bill Agee just posted with some apt comments.  Truth in  
advertising.  Tell the truth.  Pigment based inks on cotton rag paper,  
treat it well and it will outlast the color photograph hanging on the  
other wall.  If the buyer is purchasing it for the great grandchildren  
they hope to have,  maybe you should point them to the oil paintings.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Of course I don't endorse people putting any artwork in direct  
> sunlight, but
> some people have specific places in a house that they want a particular
> piece, and it may, at some time, be hit by direct sunlight for some  
> number
> of hours.  I have a Fairchild in such a spot, it is a large painting,  
> and
> this really is the only spot.  It gets late day direct sun...and  
> honestly,
> I've seen no fading at all, and if you now Fairchild at all, you'd  
> know his
> pieces are very colorful.  I have a Piezo print next to it...and it's
> noticeably faded, and it hasn't even been there 6 months.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Sell a Home with Ease!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Todd Flashner

>> Do you know any customers, personally, who are disappointed because
>> _they_ saw fading of properly mounted and displayed inkjet prints?
>> What were they printed on, how were they printed, how were they
>> displayed.  I am still looking for something more than urban myth.  A
>> real customer who bought a real print, displayed it properly and then
>> said, hey, this looks like crap now ( or even this looks different now).
> 
> I believe there are two issues with what you say.  First is, we were told
> that there was NO fading in South window tests...  My experience shows
> differently that these inks DO fade.  Second, people who use these inks ARE
> afraid of "selling" (even giving away) their works for fear of fading, real
> of mere apprehension.

I think there may be a certain amount of confusion in this thread, and those
that sprang from it, because people aren't being specific about which inks
are being discussed. I'm guessing when Tina (who's work I admire, btw), says
hers don't fade I think she's speaking of the original PiezoBW inks, whereas
I think Austin is discussing the PiezoTones. Feel free to correct me as
necessary. The irony is that the PiezoTones were trumpeted to be more
archival than the original inks, which in three out of four ink positions
they are. However, because its K ink fades so much, so fast, the overall
print appearance suffers very strongly, very quickly, and no direct sun
light is required, at least in my experience. I should also add, that was my
experience on PhotoRag, while on EAM the longevity has been much better, so
YMMV.

Anyway, just thought it might be helpful if we specified exactly what inks
we mean when we discuss their fade.

Todd

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Eddy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Tina Manley <images@i...> 
wrote:
> At 11:23 AM 10/18/02 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> > Will you be at PhotoExpo?  I'll bring some prints  ;-)
> 
> Tina
> 
Tina, I'll be at Photo Expo, and I'd LOVE to see some of your prints! 

--Eddy McDonald

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Tina Manley

At 08:36 PM 10/18/02 -0400, you wrote:

>I think there may be a certain amount of confusion in this thread, and those
>that sprang from it, because people aren't being specific about which inks
>are being discussed. I'm guessing when Tina (who's work I admire, btw), says
>hers don't fade I think she's speaking of the original PiezoBW inks,

Thank you, Todd.  Yes, I've never used anything but the original Piezo 
Quad-black inks.  I'm not going to fix something that's not broken!

Tina

>whereas
>I think Austin is discussing the PiezoTones. Feel free to correct me as
>necessary. The irony is that the PiezoTones were trumpeted to be more
>archival than the original inks, which in three out of four ink positions
>they are. However, because its K ink fades so much, so fast, the overall
>print appearance suffers very strongly, very quickly, and no direct sun
>light is required, at least in my experience. I should also add, that was my
>experience on PhotoRag, while on EAM the longevity has been much better, so
>YMMV.
>
>Anyway, just thought it might be helpful if we specified exactly what inks
>we mean when we discuss their fade.
>
>Todd
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226671.2053067.3698778.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1269250/R=0/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?sharperimage-best+Kx5gsR:dmad/M=226671.2053067.3698778.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1269250/R=1/1034987554+ir105.html>2189f91.jpg
>2189ffe.jpg
>
>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>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 the 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Tina Manley

At 07:11 PM 10/18/02 -0400, you wrote:

> > Will you be at PhotoExpo?  I'll bring some prints  ;-)
>
>No, but I'll be at B.D.'s, so please do bring prints!  I'll bring my loupe
>;-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin

Unfortunately, I won't make it to B.D.'s this year :-(    I had planned on 
it but, my husband has a crisis in Texas and we aren't leaving until 
Tuesday morning, flying to New York and driving on to Cape Cod for the 
Leica seminars.  I'll be in Cape Cod until the Expo and then in New York 
until Nov. 6th.  I'm printing frantically to get lots of prints 
ready.  Bring your loupe to Cape Cod or New York!!

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Austin Franklin

Hi Tina,

> > > Will you be at PhotoExpo?  I'll bring some prints  ;-)
> >
> >No, but I'll be at B.D.'s, so please do bring prints!  I'll
> bring my loupe
> >;-)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Austin
>
> Unfortunately, I won't make it to B.D.'s this year :-(

Argh, and I was only going to see you ;-)

> I'll be in Cape Cod until the Expo and then in New York
> until Nov. 6th.  I'm printing frantically to get lots of prints
> ready.  Bring your loupe to Cape Cod or New York!!

If you have a free lunch or dinner, I could come down to the Cape for an
afternoon or evening if you'd like!  I'll send you my info off-list...let me
know.

Regards,

Austin

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-19 by Austin Franklin

> >> Do you know any customers, personally, who are disappointed because
> >> _they_ saw fading of properly mounted and displayed inkjet prints?
> >> What were they printed on, how were they printed, how were they
> >> displayed.  I am still looking for something more than urban myth.  A
> >> real customer who bought a real print, displayed it properly and then
> >> said, hey, this looks like crap now ( or even this looks
> different now).
> >
> > I believe there are two issues with what you say.  First is, we
> were told
> > that there was NO fading in South window tests...  My experience shows
> > differently that these inks DO fade.  Second, people who use
> these inks ARE
> > afraid of "selling" (even giving away) their works for fear of
> fading, real
> > of mere apprehension.
>
> I think there may be a certain amount of confusion in this
> thread, and those
> that sprang from it, because people aren't being specific about which inks
> are being discussed. I'm guessing when Tina (who's work I admire,
> btw), says
> hers don't fade I think she's speaking of the original PiezoBW
> inks, whereas
> I think Austin is discussing the PiezoTones.

Hi Todd,

Nope, sorry...original PiezoBW inks...as it's all I have ever used, and
works fine for me, more or less...so I'm waiting until I run out until I try
any others, if I decide to tray any others...

Regards,

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-20 by Tina Manley

At 12:52 AM 10/19/02 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Tina Manley <images@i...>
>wrote:
> > At 11:23 AM 10/18/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > > Will you be at PhotoExpo?  I'll bring some prints  ;-)
> >
> > Tina
> >
>Tina, I'll be at Photo Expo, and I'd LOVE to see some of your prints!
>
>--Eddy McDonald


Hi, Eddy -

I'll be hanging around the Leica booth and the Inkjetmall booth.  I'll try 
to get to the DigitalB&W meeting, too, but I'm signed up for a seminar 
then, too.  Look for a grandma with several Leicas and a box of prints (I'm 
only taking small ones since I have to carry them all over the 
country).  I'm not hard to miss!  See you later -

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

RE: [Digital BW] Piezography 3000 moderators!

2002-10-20 by Tina Manley

At 11:28 PM 10/18/02 -0400, you wrote:

>If you have a free lunch or dinner, I could come down to the Cape for an
>afternoon or evening if you'd like!  I'll send you my info off-list...let me
>know.
>
>Regards,
>
>Austin


Austin -

I'll be at the Sheraton Four Points in Eastham from October 23 - 27.  Come 
and see me anytime!

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com





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

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.