Digital BW, The Print

I apologize in advance for this cross-posting, but I need to go firmly 
on record about this.

Given the postings by the two Jerries (never thought I'd use that word 
as a non-Brit), Paul,  Victor,  Bob Michaels, myself,  and others, I 
have done some more thinking and want to make my current position on the 
EPSON paper confusion CRYSTAL and UNADORNEDLY clear:

For the time being, I would recommend creating new profiles when using current EEM
or HWM.  Personally, I'd actually recommend avoiding these papers
entirely (at least in the North American market) until this sorts out.

I would ask that anyone with contacts at EPSON etc., do as I am, and push them so we can
get both:

1)    A straight answer on the changes

2)     Some kind of part # marking that differentiates these products by
whatever factor is making their properties jump all over the map (batch
number, date of production, substrate source, whatever.)


Until that happens I would pronounce these papers UNPREDICTABLE, INCONSISTENT, and UNUSABLE for any serious imagery -- including proofing of PhotoRag or Museo, etc. (absent doing your own batch profiling).

I have to really be amazed at this turn of affairs, it's one thing to 
ignore serious fine-art printers (professional or amateur) as a market 
niche, it is quite another for EPSON to undertake changes that were 
almost predestined to aggravate them and drive them away as customers. 
 We all know EPSON makes its real profit from consumables, doing 
anything to raise serious consistency and unannounced product change 
issues regarding those consumables is BONE-HEADED at best, as it simply 
ensures users will choose alternative consumable media sources instead 
of EPSON.
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and founder of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 


{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }






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

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

From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
>
> Until that happens I would pronounce these papers
> UNPREDICTABLE, INCONSISTENT, and
> UNUSABLE for any serious imagery -- including
> proofing of PhotoRag or Museo, etc. (absent doing
> your own batch profiling).

Keith,

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Of course Epson is covered legally since the packaging for EAM contains the
fine-print, "Specifications are subject to change without notice."

I think they could have handled it more responsibly and professionally
though by saying something like, "Archival Matte has been reformulated to
provide ... and will be sold under the name Enhanced Matte.  Archival Matte
will no longer be available when supplies run out."

The more I learn about this, the more I'm convinced reports of them trying
to limit their liability to the yellowing issue are accurate.  Comparing EAM
and EEM packaging, Epson added the following fine-print to the EEM boxes:

     "Since all dyes, pigments and media change over time,
     Epson does not warrant this product against color
     changes and fading."

If I was paying for custom profiles, I'd be very upset with Epson right now.
As it stands, I'm disappointed with them in their decision of how to handle
this.  I hope someone can get some concrete answers from Epson and
cross-post them.

--Tom

Hello Keith,

>...UNUSABLE for any serious imagery -- including 
>proofing of PhotoRag or Museo, etc. 

I tend to agree.  I still have some EAM remaining, which I use as
proofing for PR, but it will run out in a few weeks.  Today Steve K.
came over to my house with some HWM and we made a print on both.  I
can say right away that if I had to use HWM it would make my work more
difficult and time consuming.  From what I gather the new EEM at least
looks similar to HWM, if not actually the same coating.  If so, then
this is indeed a step backwards.

For proofers like me it means that I would have to bring PR into the
proofing process much earlier in the work up, increasing my costs
significantly.  For people who rely on EAM for final prints it's a
disaster.

> I would ask that anyone with contacts at EPSON etc., do as I am
> and push them so we can get both:
> 1) A straight answer on the changes
> 2)Some kind of part # marking that differentiates these products by
> whatever factor is making their properties jump all over the map
>batch number, date of production, substrate source, whatever.)

I agree.  When the batch of yellowish EAM was released it eventually
was isolated to a certain batch.  Let's hope something similar is at
work here.  Don't give up just yet.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm