Digital BW, The Print

At 06:58 PM 2/11/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Can you provide me with a link to that page so I can "attempt" to see
>(with my obviously bad eyes) if your Black Only printing is equal to
>other examples I have seen?


Without the context of the discussion we were having
(it had to do with printhead to paper distance for black
only printing) I don't think you'd be able to make any
sense of what you're seeing, but sure:
http://www.studio-nelson.com/tmpimage/pap2200.jpg

At 04:27 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Peter: FWIW, my expereince was that you can load MIS VM ink carts in a
>1280, use the Roark workflow and get same quality prints in the amount
>of time necessary to learn how to do the same in a wet darkroom.
>Ditto, the MIS FSN inks with Woolf workflow. Ditto, Black Only using
>Clayton Jones workflow. None will be great but at least the quality as
>a beginning wet darkroom worker having spent the same time.

But then why do so many other people say they can't get
such results even after trying real hard?  This just reinforces
what I was saying before that it's apparently hit or miss, and
it works well for SOME people.   Why is there such inconsistency
in people's experiences on this?

>BTW, Epson replaced my 1280 under warranty even after I told them it
>was ruined by a 3rd party flush cart.

I don't know what to conclude from this.  I have two Epson printers
under warranty and they both VERY explicitly exclude damage
caused by using parts or materials "not manufactured, certified,
or distributed by Epson", so you may have gotten lucky but how
should anyone generalizr that to themselves?   Also, the fact that
the head was damaged by a 3rd party product is interesting all
by itself.

My 1280 was permanaently disabled by the flush cart that was missing
the required chip. Insert one of those and it doesn't work. Remove it
and it bends the contact pins so no cart will ever work in there. 

Yes, I was surprised when Epson did an overnight warranty replacement.
But they have done it for others as well. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:

> >BTW, Epson replaced my 1280 under warranty even after I told them it
> >was ruined by a 3rd party flush cart.
> 
> I don't know what to conclude from this.  I have two Epson printers
> under warranty and they both VERY explicitly exclude damage
> caused by using parts or materials "not manufactured, certified,
> or distributed by Epson", so you may have gotten lucky but how
> should anyone generalizr that to themselves?   Also, the fact that
> the head was damaged by a 3rd party product is interesting all
> by itself.

Peter: At the risk of generalizing, it seems to me that most of the
problems are centered around those trying to use a 2200 for b&w
printing. It's just not the ideal b&w printer. The 1280 and 1160 seem
much more suitable. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 04:27 PM 2/12/2003 +0000,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 

> wrote:
> >Peter: FWIW, my expereince was that you can load MIS VM ink carts in a
> >1280, use the Roark workflow and get same quality prints in the amount
> >of time necessary to learn how to do the same in a wet darkroom.
> >Ditto, the MIS FSN inks with Woolf workflow. Ditto, Black Only using
> >Clayton Jones workflow. None will be great but at least the quality as
> >a beginning wet darkroom worker having spent the same time.
> 
> But then why do so many other people say they can't get
> such results even after trying real hard?  This just reinforces
> what I was saying before that it's apparently hit or miss, and
> it works well for SOME people.   Why is there such inconsistency
> in people's experiences on this?

At 03:48 AM 2/13/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Peter, who are these "many" people who can't get high quality results
>with MIS VM, Cone, and Mediastreet inks and the papers of their choice?


I see them on this forum, Photo.net, and others all the time.
Many of them are the ones who, in desperation, are going
to B-O printing or spending $500 for RIPs to tryo to get decent
BW prints using CcMmYKk.


>This would be illegal to ban the use of third party inks.


You're the second person to make this bizarre claim.
Please cite the applicable law.  I'm sure Epson had their lawyers
review their warranty.

At 09:38 AM 2/13/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>(as an aside - I mean,  why you'd want
>to print B&W digitally since you've been able since age 13   to produce
>simple, reliable, B&W fine art prints in a chemical darkroom that
>satisfy you, is beyond me.. -- if you don't see other people producing
>digital B&W prints that impress you, why move to digital yourself?)


Because I do digital photography.

. . .
>There, you have your citations...


WHAT citations?   You didn't supply ANY citations.

Anyway I clarified my comment earlier, that what was voided was
just the part damaged by the third-party inks, e.g., the head.

Anyone can say Sherman AntiTrust Act, but the fact
is that the Sherman has only been invoked rarely, and
when it is it's a big Federal case.   To violate the Sherman
Antitrust Act a company has to form a "trust" meaning
that Epson would have to work in cahoots with some OTHER
company in a way so as to keep some part of the market to
themselves, manipulate prices, etc.

Historically the Sherman has been VERY hard to prove or
enforce. If the government can't convince the courts that Microsoft
+ Intel (which own 95% of the desktop computer market) are
in violation then you can be sure that Sherman doesn't live here
anymore.

At 09:38 AM 2/13/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
> >know this is soooo postmodern - you are evaluating systems by what people
> >say??!!!! You've not looked at prints??!!1 Stop wasting your time - go to a
> >lab who do piezo prints - buy an A4, go to a lambda lab - buy an A4.
> >Make a decision.


You haven't been following this thread, have you?

I SAID that I have no doubt that SOME people can
get good results with those techniques.  If the lab gives
me good prints all that shows is that a full-time professional
who has spent years learning to tweak his curves and play
with his settings can do it.  It doesn't answer my question about
having a simple, reliable system that *I* can use without
spending tons of time climbing a long learning curve.  Or
having to fiddle with every print for hours to get it right.

I want to go into Photoshop, adjust my histogrom and
curves so it looks good on my monitor, hit the OK button
on the print dialog and have it print that way.