Digital BW, The Print

I have seen this printer/software/RIP shootout referred to on a 
number of forums. Apparantly Piezo ICC won it. Did anyone here go to 
PMA and see the results? Does anyone know of a site where we could 
view the results. Does anyone know what the guidelines were. This 
would seem to be an interesting comparison of all of the methods we 
use here. (I'm an XP/PS 7.01 & CS/IP 5.6/Epson 2200 user meself.)

Best, Jim Weekes

> From: "jymbo4600" <jymbo46@...>
> 
> I have seen this printer/software/RIP shootout referred to on a
> number of forums. Apparantly Piezo ICC won it. Did anyone here go to
> PMA and see the results? Does anyone know of a site where we could
> view the results. Does anyone know what the guidelines were. This
> would seem to be an interesting comparison of all of the methods we
> use here. (I'm an XP/PS 7.01 & CS/IP 5.6/Epson 2200 user meself.)
> 
> Best, Jim Weekes


I asked the same question in the piezo forum
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/) during a discussion with
Jon Cone of Piezo regarding the ICC Piezo system and didn't receive a reply.


-David Ray Carson
web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/

Missed your message on the Piezolist David,

The guidelines were that each participant was sent a target and had
72 hours to print 
it=receive the CD-ROM test target file and print on Monday, ship it
back by Friday. No 
other rules other than stating what printer, inks, paper, software
was used along with 
the relative value of the cost of making the print.

DIMA has a panel of judges who then blind judged all the entries,
without any 
indication of which was printed by whom or by what process. In B&W
one winner was 
chosen, and no runner up places.

The printers present from EPSON: 1160, 1280, 2200, 4000, 9000, 9500
fom HP: 7960
fom ColorSpan: X-12

inks=PiezoTones, Lyson, Sundance, EPSON UltraChrome, HP, ColorSpan

papers ran the gamut with fine art surfaces from Hahnemuhle, Ilford,
Lyson, Moab, 
Piezography  and then typical matte/glossy EPSON, HP and ColorSpan
inkjet papers

RIPS; ErgoSoft, ImagePrint, ColorBurst
plugin: PiezographyBW, R9 Septone

ICC profiles: PiezographyBW ICC

I think this is as clear a presentation as possible at this time. We
have shipped back 
copies of the exact technical specifications of each entry and will
have those when our 
gear arrives from the PMA tradeshow. At that time I will be able to
give you a more 
complete picture.

The few that I remember are my own of course:
 -EPSON 1280, Piezography Museum Bright White Paper, PiezoTone
Selenium Tone 
inks, PiezographyBW ICC profile

- EPSON 2200, Moab Entrada, Sundance Septone inks, R9 Septone plugin

- EPSON 1160, PiezoTone Selenium Tone inks, Ilford Fine Art paper,
PiezographyBW 
plugin

- EPSON 4000, EPSON Smooth Archival paper, UltraChrome inks (RIP?)

-HP 7960, HP Photo Glossy paper, HP Quad black inks

There were 13 in total and I will post the complete details when we
get back the 13 
technical entry sheets.

regards,

Jon Cone





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, David Ray Carson 
<dave@d...> wrote:
> > From: "jymbo4600" <jymbo46@b...>
> > 
> > I have seen this printer/software/RIP shootout referred to on a
> > number of forums. Apparantly Piezo ICC won it. Did anyone here go
to
> > PMA and see the results? Does anyone know of a site where we could
> > view the results. Does anyone know what the guidelines were. This
> > would seem to be an interesting comparison of all of the methods
we
> > use here. (I'm an XP/PS 7.01 & CS/IP 5.6/Epson 2200 user meself.)
> > 
> > Best, Jim Weekes
> 
> 
> I asked the same question in the piezo forum
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/) during a
discussion with
> Jon Cone of Piezo regarding the ICC Piezo system and didn't receive
a reply.

> 
> 
> -David Ray Carson
> web: http://www.davidraycarson.com/

This seems way too simplistic to me because it completely ignores the 
aspect of "artistic feel" in the resulting prints.  A target may be 
good for showing the dither pattern, general accuracy of tonal output 
for a given gradient, but actual photos are much more complex and 
have infinitely variable gradiations etc. not tested in this 
shootout.  I'm not arguing against the findings since I've never used 
the Piezography system, and I don't doubt that it is very good, but 
don't have much faith this being the acid test for b&w print quality.

mark

[b&w shootout]
> The guidelines were that each participant was sent a target and had
> 72 hours to print 
> it=receive the CD-ROM test target file and print on Monday, ship it
> back by Friday. No 
> other rules other than stating what printer, inks, paper, software
> was used along with 
> the relative value of the cost of making the print.
...

Well... but that's what it was. It was testing the print quality. If
you introduce "artistic feel", objectivity is lost. I understand your
point but I don't think it can apply here. The testes were done in a
"measurable" way. If you need to interpret its artistic values, it
becomes really hard to be objective.

g

MH> This seems way too simplistic to me because it completely ignores the
MH> aspect of "artistic feel" in the resulting prints.  A target may be
MH> good for showing the dither pattern, general accuracy of tonal output
MH> for a given gradient, but actual photos are much more complex and 
MH> have infinitely variable gradiations etc. not tested in this 
MH> shootout.  I'm not arguing against the findings since I've never used
MH> the Piezography system, and I don't doubt that it is very good, but
MH> don't have much faith this being the acid test for b&w print quality.

MH> mark

I'm not suggesting that it isn't useful information or that it 
shouldn't be done, but it is far from the whole picture (so to speek:)

Just like lens tests *not* showing Leica or Zeiss lenses to be *that* 
much better than anything else... image magic is complex and is hard 
to measure.

I think any complete test would have to compare the easily measured 
variables and then include actual images to balance out the 
judging... in the end you want images and not targets or stepwedges.

I would like to see the results if they get posted somewhere though.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Gus J Grubba 
<gus@g...> wrote:
> Well... but that's what it was. It was testing the print quality. If
> you introduce "artistic feel", objectivity is lost. I understand 
your
> point but I don't think it can apply here. The testes were done in a
> "measurable" way. If you need to interpret its artistic values, it
> becomes really hard to be objective.
> 
> g
> 
> MH> This seems way too simplistic to me because it completely 
ignores the
> MH> aspect of "artistic feel" in the resulting prints.  A target 
may be
> MH> good for showing the dither pattern, general accuracy of tonal 
output
> MH> for a given gradient, but actual photos are much more complex 
and 
> MH> have infinitely variable gradiations etc. not tested in this 
> MH> shootout.  I'm not arguing against the findings since I've 
never used
> MH> the Piezography system, and I don't doubt that it is very good, 
but
> MH> don't have much faith this being the acid test for b&w print 
quality.
> 
> MH> mark

Yep,  Just think back to what most of us have done in the darkroom over many years.  We tested, tested, and tested materials 'till we just couldn't tolerate looking a one more test strip.  Most of us found these test useful to weed out the technical process/materials that simply weren't useful.  The remainder we tended to keep on hand because most had at least some application to images we made.  Different film/paper/developer for differents subjects/situations.  And it woked well.  In a sense we have given up that flexibility with digital.  It is simply too expensive for most of us to have all of the ink/paper combinations on hand that might be useful for certain images.
 
In short, I find tests useful for providing 'don't buy' information, not 'buy' information.
 
Tom Baker

Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
I'm not suggesting that it isn't useful information or that it 
shouldn't be done, but it is far from the whole picture (so to speek:)

Just like lens tests *not* showing Leica or Zeiss lenses to be *that* 
much better than anything else... image magic is complex and is hard 
to measure.

I think any complete test would have to compare the easily measured 
variables and then include actual images to balance out the 
judging... in the end you want images and not targets or stepwedges.

I would like to see the results if they get posted somewhere though.

mark



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Yep,  Just think back to what most of us have done in the darkroom 
over many years.  We tested, tested, and tested materials 'till we 
just couldn't tolerate looking a one more test strip.  Most of us 
found these test useful to weed out the technical process/materials 
that simply weren't useful.  The remainder we tended to keep on hand 
because most had at least some application to images we made.  
Different film/paper/developer for differents subjects/situations.  
And it woked well.  In a sense we have given up that flexibility 
with digital.  It is simply too expensive for most of us to have all 
of the ink/paper combinations on hand that might be useful for 
certain images.
>  
> In short, I find tests useful for providing 'don't buy' 
information, not 'buy' information.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
Tom et al,

This is what I was getting at when I started this string. There is 
no way physically, or financially, for most of us to try all of the 
wonderful choices for B&W digital printing. I am VERY happy with IP 
5.6 on a 2200. But I have no idea what Piezo, or R9 or Septone or 
Paul's C82/84 EZ looks like. I do have a 1270 set up with MIS QVM 
carts and I like the look of those prints from scans on an Epson 
3200. I use Paul's generously provided curves. Thank you. 

I think most of us would love to see them all side by side, if only, 
at the least, to feel good about our choices. I'd even like to hear 
the opinion of a non-participant who saw the results. One would hope 
that we aren't all so wedded to our own workflows that we couldn't 
learn from a comparison.

Best, Jim Weekes

How about a print exchange and we all use the same image file? That 
way we could compare for ourselves the different approaches.
I use the PW plugin, well it's installed but never used.Black only, 
which I use a lot because of the cost. lately IP5.6 which is giving 
me wonderful prints at a cost. Note that I use a 2200 for all of the 
above. 

Barry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jymbo4600" 
<jymbo46@b...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
> <tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> > Yep,  Just think back to what most of us have done in the 
darkroom 
> over many years.  We tested, tested, and tested materials 'till we 
> just couldn't tolerate looking a one more test strip.  Most of us 
> found these test useful to weed out the technical process/materials 
> that simply weren't useful.  The remainder we tended to keep on 
hand 
> because most had at least some application to images we made.  
> Different film/paper/developer for differents subjects/situations.  
> And it woked well.  In a sense we have given up that flexibility 
> with digital.  It is simply too expensive for most of us to have 
all 
> of the ink/paper combinations on hand that might be useful for 
> certain images.
> >  
> > In short, I find tests useful for providing 'don't buy' 
> information, not 'buy' information.
> >  
> > Tom Baker
> > 
> Tom et al,
> 
> This is what I was getting at when I started this string. There is 
> no way physically, or financially, for most of us to try all of the 
> wonderful choices for B&W digital printing. I am VERY happy with IP 
> 5.6 on a 2200. But I have no idea what Piezo, or R9 or Septone or 
> Paul's C82/84 EZ looks like. I do have a 1270 set up with MIS QVM 
> carts and I like the look of those prints from scans on an Epson 
> 3200. I use Paul's generously provided curves. Thank you. 
> 
> I think most of us would love to see them all side by side, if 
only, 
> at the least, to feel good about our choices. I'd even like to hear 
> the opinion of a non-participant who saw the results. One would 
hope 

> that we aren't all so wedded to our own workflows that we couldn't 
> learn from a comparison.
> 
> Best, Jim Weekes

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

From: jymbo4600 [mailto:jymbo46@...] 
Sent: 26 February 2004 03:13
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B & W shootout at PMA and DIMA

I think most of us would love to see them all side by side, if only, 
at the least, to feel good about our choices. I'd even like to hear 
the opinion of a non-participant who saw the results. One would hope 
that we aren't all so wedded to our own workflows that we couldn't 
learn from a comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But just what would you learn?
I mean to say if you liked the Piezo in preference to the other samples,
would you dump all your current consumables and buy the Cone product. A
costly business, especially if having done the swop, you found you gained
nothing extra printing your own work.

 Then again just what does (what you Americans quaintly refer to as "a shoot
out") really prove? Little or nothing except on that particular day printing
those particular subjects a panel with a particular set of preferences chose
one particular suppliers samples.

Next month another panel could well chose somebody else's.
Another month and somebody else gets the nod and so on and so on.

Come sir, if you like what you are currently producing be satisfied and stay
away from Pandoras box.

Richard



---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

one flaw in your main point is that you seem to be assuming that we 
are going to be sticking with whatever system we already have 
forever, but these printers break, CFSs clog etc. etc. and for one 
reason or another we will be going from one system to another quite 
often.  I'm still trying to get my 1160 back online, but if I can't 
do that I'm certainly not going pay a lot of money to fix it and even 
if I replace it with a 1280 I have to reassess my inkset selection 
etc. etc. as well as consider other printers.  So information on 
other systems is useful, even if it doesn't drive me to immediately 
scrap what I have now.

Mark

...
> But just what would you learn?
> I mean to say if you liked the Piezo in preference to the other 
samples,
> would you dump all your current consumables and buy the Cone 
product. A
> costly business, especially if having done the swop, you found you 
gained
> nothing extra printing your own work.
> 
>  Then again just what does (what you Americans quaintly refer to 
as "a shoot
> out") really prove? Little or nothing except on that particular day 
printing
> those particular subjects a panel with a particular set of 
preferences chose
> one particular suppliers samples.
> 
> Next month another panel could well chose somebody else's.
> Another month and somebody else gets the nod and so on and so on.
> 
> Come sir, if you like what you are currently producing be satisfied 
and stay
> away from Pandoras box.
> 
> Richard
...

> > But just what would you learn?
> I mean to say if you liked the Piezo in preference to the other 
samples,
> would you dump all your current consumables and buy the Cone 
product. A
> costly business, especially if having done the swop, you found you 
gained
> nothing extra printing your own work.
> 
>  Then again just what does (what you Americans quaintly refer to 
as "a shoot
> out") really prove? Little or nothing except on that particular 
day printing
> those particular subjects a panel with a particular set of 
preferences chose
> one particular suppliers samples.
> 
> Next month another panel could well chose somebody else's.
> Another month and somebody else gets the nod and so on and so on.
> 
> Come sir, if you like what you are currently producing be 
satisfied and stay
> away from Pandoras box.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
Richard...You are absolutely right about Pandora's box. I had that 
problem many years ago with darkroom materials. (Hmmmm...maybe Tri-x 
in D76 on Portriga IS better than Agfa 100 in Rodinal on Brovira 
etc.) I eventually settled down. I love my current setup (XP /PS/ 
IP/ 2200) but I have a desire for larger prints and am considering 
the 4000 for 16x24s. So I would really just like to see the 4000 
with IP on PR and the Epson inks. Curiosity is strong in us monkey-
types.

Best, Jim

Mark:

I've recently discovered the hard way that your view is correct.  I 
am a long time user of the Piezography plug-in, and have been using 
the Piezotone ICC profiles for a couple of months.  Initially, my 
prints of 21-step targets, and even of a number of photographic 
images, were very encouraging.  (So much so that I posted an 
endorsement of the ICC profiles on the 3000 list.)  

Recently, however, I have found that the profiles are incapable of 
correctly printing a whole variety of more complex images.  The 
problem is a little hard to describe (I'm sending the actual prints 
to Jon Cone) but if I had to pick one word it would be 
posterization.  (My girlfriend, who has a sharp eye, looked at one 
print and said it looked like a charcoal sketch, which will give you 
some idea of the profile's failure to differentiate between subtly 
different tones.) The same images printed with the plug-in are fine, 
with all the tones distinct.

Until I read Mr. Cone's reply to your initial post, I wondered how in 
the world he could have won a prize with the same printer, ink, and 
profile combination.  Now I see.

Chuck



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that it isn't useful information or that it 
> shouldn't be done, but it is far from the whole picture (so to 
speek:)
> 
> Just like lens tests *not* showing Leica or Zeiss lenses to be 
*that* 
> much better than anything else... image magic is complex and is 
hard 
> to measure.
> 
> I think any complete test would have to compare the easily measured 
> variables and then include actual images to balance out the 
> judging... in the end you want images and not targets or stepwedges.
> 
> I would like to see the results if they get posted somewhere though.
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Gus J Grubba 
> <gus@g...> wrote:
> > Well... but that's what it was. It was testing the print quality. 
If
> > you introduce "artistic feel", objectivity is lost. I understand 
> your
> > point but I don't think it can apply here. The testes were done 
in a
> > "measurable" way. If you need to interpret its artistic values, it
> > becomes really hard to be objective.
> > 
> > g
> > 
> > MH> This seems way too simplistic to me because it completely 
> ignores the
> > MH> aspect of "artistic feel" in the resulting prints.  A target 
> may be
> > MH> good for showing the dither pattern, general accuracy of 
tonal 
> output
> > MH> for a given gradient, but actual photos are much more complex 
> and 
> > MH> have infinitely variable gradiations etc. not tested in this 
> > MH> shootout.  I'm not arguing against the findings since I've 
> never used
> > MH> the Piezography system, and I don't doubt that it is very 
good, 

> but
> > MH> don't have much faith this being the acid test for b&w print 
> quality.
> > 
> > MH> mark

This is true.  Panels really do mean nothing,
especially the crowd that travels with the PMA
circuit.

The final product is the only thing that matters to
your paying customers.  Most do not care with what or
how the print was made, as long as it is a good print;
and I am assured that they did not attend PMA 2004.

Regarding the claims or awards going to the "best"
black and white printing solution, previously the
original sundance/piezography was the best.  Then the
piezotones with the fades-alot black was the best. 
Now the ICC system is the best...  See a pattern?

Caveat Emptor.

Don


> 
> Next month another panel could well chose somebody
> else's.
> Another month and somebody else gets the nod and so
> on and so on.
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

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

From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...] 
Sent: 26 February 2004 16:59
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B & W shootout at PMA and DIMA

one flaw in your main point is that you seem to be assuming that we 
are going to be sticking with whatever system we already have 
forever, but these printers break, CFSs clog etc. etc. and for one 
reason or another we will be going from one system to another quite 
often.  I'm still trying to get my 1160 back online, but if I can't 
do that I'm certainly not going pay a lot of money to fix it and even 
if I replace it with a 1280 I have to reassess my inkset selection 
etc. etc. as well as consider other printers.  So information on 
other systems is useful, even if it doesn't drive me to immediately 
scrap what I have now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouold suggest that your time would be better spent waiting until you wish
to make a change. Then you look at whats available and then you make
comparisons between systems.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

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

From: jymbo4600 [mailto:jymbo46@...] 
Sent: 26 February 2004 17:00
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B & W shootout at PMA and DIMA

Curiosity is strong in us monkey-types.
--------------------------------------

But Jimbo - "curiosity killed the cat".......meeeeooooowwwwwwwwwww.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

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

From: cschaible94111 [mailto:cschaible@...] 
Sent: 26 February 2004 17:11
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B & W shootout at PMA and DIMA

Mark:

I've recently discovered the hard way that your view is correct.  I 
am a long time user of the Piezography plug-in, and have been using 
the Piezotone ICC profiles for a couple of months.  Initially, my 
prints of 21-step targets, and even of a number of photographic 
images, were very encouraging.  (So much so that I posted an 
endorsement of the ICC profiles on the 3000 list.)  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The great secret of success when using the Piezo system is to confine
yourself to printing 21 step wedges only.

Indeed I believe that the original driving force behind this most admirable
invention by Meisterprinter Jonbo was to demonstrate to the world of fine
art print that his plug-in would produce the world's finest 21 step grey
scale images, and that he has undoubtedly achieved and for that he deserves
his rightful place in the history of fine art print.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

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

From: D. Hill [mailto:hill14701@...] 
Sent: 26 February 2004 17:20
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: B & W shootout at PMA and DIMA

This is true.  Panels really do mean nothing,
especially the crowd that travels with the PMA
circuit.

The final product is the only thing that matters to
your paying customers.  Most do not care with what or
how the print was made, as long as it is a good print;
and I am assured that they did not attend PMA 2004.

Regarding the claims or awards going to the "best"
black and white printing solution, previously the
original sundance/piezography was the best.  Then the
piezotones with the fades-alot black was the best. 
Now the ICC system is the best...  See a pattern?

Caveat Emptor.
------------------------------------------------------
That's an unusual sig, if I might be so bold Mr Emptor BUT....you are of
course quite correct in all you say, with especial reference to Para (2)
above.

A sensible buyer votes with his feet rather than his emotions and knows when
to walk away. I have walked away many times, many, many times and indeed I
am about to walk away now and from this thread.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

I've stayed out of this, but I was at the PMA show in the PermaJet/Jobo
booth.  I was not even aware of the competition, although the DIMA dog and
pony show was going right next to the very modest Jobo/PermaJet booth.

I had a chance to meet and talk with Jon Cone, and found him very personable
and friendly.  His Piezo booth was large and very impressive.  He's clearly
a real pro at these events and good at the sales end of the business --
rather 180 degrees off from MIS's business model. 

I have not compared the Piezo ICC output with the UT2 inks.  Given the
amount of light ink the ICC system uses, it would not surprise me if, at
least under a loupe, the Piezo inks are smoother.  

I have clearly opted for flexibility and "smooth enough" over ultimate
"dotlessness."  

When I first started doing digital output I used 16x20 image setter output
and contact printed onto fiber based paper.  I wanted no one to be able to
tell that there was a digital step.  Now I don't care.  I think the current
pigments are good enough to stand on their own.  If people see dots under a
loupe, that is OK with me.  

That said, a photo magazine writer who had just been at the Piezo booth came
by the Jobo/PermaJet booth and studied the output of a 1290 using the
PermaJet version of the latest inks -- called the New VT Blax.  The 1290 was
using the default settings with no curves or sliders.  The writer said the
print, on PermaJet Alpha, was the first digital print he'd seen that looked
as good as a darkroom print.

I, frankly, have no idea why he liked it better than the Piezo output.

At any rate, I think there are a number of factors in selecting an inkset
(some very subjective), and there are a number of good inksets -- different
strokes for different folks.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

I am still pretty new to Digital B&W printing (I have
had my Epson 1280 with MIS UT2 for a couple of weeks
now and am really enjoying it), and I have only used
two papers so far: Epson Enhanced Matte and Hahnamuhle
Photo Rag.

For the difference in price, I think the EEM is a
great product.  The Photo Rag feels fantastic in my
hands, but I see only very slight difference in image
quality.

What paper(s) are you using for your B&W printing, and
what's your favorite (and why)?



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Max: I use only EEM now. HPR is nice but there's not enough difference
to justity the price for me.
Bob Michaels 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Max Clark
<bad2maxxx@y...> wrote:

> I am still pretty new to Digital B&W printing (I have
> had my Epson 1280 with MIS UT2 for a couple of weeks
> now and am really enjoying it), and I have only used
> two papers so far: Epson Enhanced Matte and Hahnamuhle
> Photo Rag.
> 
> For the difference in price, I think the EEM is a
> great product.  The Photo Rag feels fantastic in my
> hands, but I see only very slight difference in image
> quality.
> 
> What paper(s) are you using for your B&W printing, and
> what's your favorite (and why)?
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Hello Max,

>I have only used two papers so far: EEM and PR
>For the difference in price, I think the EEM is a
>great product.  The Photo Rag feels fantastic in my
>hands, but I see only very slight difference in image
>quality.

>What paper(s) are you using for your B&W printing, and
>what's your favorite (and why)?

I use EEM for proofing because it's cheaper, but it's not archival.  
For final prints I use one of the good cotton papers.  PR has been the
main one, but I have recently expanded the list to include some others
because of the different tone colors they give with Eboni ink.  

I do Black Only printing with Eboni and with these papers I now
have 4 gradations from warm to neutral.  Here they are, all have
excellent contrast and Dmax and make really beautiful prints:

Epson Velvet fine Art - warmest
H. Photo Rag - moderately warm
Hawk Mtn. Merlin Smooth - slightly warm
Hawk Mtn. Condor BW - neutral

Paul Roark has mentioned another new paper to be released soon which I
am eager to try, Permajet Alpha Natural White.  He says it has Dmax
like PR.

I also tried the Premier Art Hot Press but ruled it out because it
requires a contrast curve to make the image match what I get with EEM
and PR.  The papers in my list all have similar contrast and print the
image without requiring an adjustment curve.  With these papers I can
work up the image on EEM and then choose the final paper for whatever
tone I want and not have to worry about applying a special curve.  I
don't know if this will apply with your ink set, so you'll have to do
some experimenting.  

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Thanks Clayton-

I know that EEM isn't technically "archival"
(apparently that was the basis for the name change),
but how long can we reasonable expect EEM to last
before first showing signs of deterioration?


--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> Hello Max,
> 
> >I have only used two papers so far: EEM and PR
> >For the difference in price, I think the EEM is a
> >great product.  The Photo Rag feels fantastic in my
> >hands, but I see only very slight difference in
> image
> >quality.
> 
> >What paper(s) are you using for your B&W printing,
> and
> >what's your favorite (and why)?
> 
> I use EEM for proofing because it's cheaper, but
> it's not archival.  
> For final prints I use one of the good cotton
> papers.  PR has been the
> main one, but I have recently expanded the list to
> include some others
> because of the different tone colors they give with
> Eboni ink.  
> 
> I do Black Only printing with Eboni and with these
> papers I now
> have 4 gradations from warm to neutral.  Here they
> are, all have
> excellent contrast and Dmax and make really
> beautiful prints:
> 
> Epson Velvet fine Art - warmest
> H. Photo Rag - moderately warm
> Hawk Mtn. Merlin Smooth - slightly warm
> Hawk Mtn. Condor BW - neutral
> 
> Paul Roark has mentioned another new paper to be
> released soon which I
> am eager to try, Permajet Alpha Natural White.  He
> says it has Dmax
> like PR.
> 
> I also tried the Premier Art Hot Press but ruled it
> out because it
> requires a contrast curve to make the image match
> what I get with EEM
> and PR.  The papers in my list all have similar
> contrast and print the
> image without requiring an adjustment curve.  With
> these papers I can
> work up the image on EEM and then choose the final
> paper for whatever
> tone I want and not have to worry about applying a
> special curve.  I
> don't know if this will apply with your ink set, so
> you'll have to do
> some experimenting.  
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Max Clark 
<bad2maxxx@y...> wrote:
> I am still pretty new to Digital B&W printing (I have
> had my Epson 1280 with MIS UT2 for a couple of weeks
> now and am really enjoying it), and I have only used
> two papers so far: Epson Enhanced Matte and Hahnamuhle
> Photo Rag.
> 
> For the difference in price, I think the EEM is a
> great product.  The Photo Rag feels fantastic in my
> hands, but I see only very slight difference in image
> quality.
> 
> What paper(s) are you using for your B&W printing, and
> what's your favorite (and why)?
> 
> 
> 

I use mostly EEM for value and quality. Epson paper is often on sale 
(half-off at CompUSA every few months). I tried Premier Premium Matte 
and liked the look but found that my 1280 didn't like the coating. I 
wonder if others find their printer feed rollers slip after using 
some coated stocks? It doesn't make the initial grab properly. As 
soon as I put Epson paper back it works fine. 

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Hello Max

>I know that EEM isn't technically "archival"
>(apparently that was the basis for the name change),
>but how long can we reasonable expect EEM to last
>before first showing signs of deterioration?

I'm not really sure, maybe someone else knows.  It's a wood pulp based
paper, not cotton.


Regards,
Clayton


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

>I know that EEM isn't technically "archival"
>(apparently that was the basis for the name change),
>but how long can we reasonable expect EEM to last
>before first showing signs of deterioration?

I think Wilhelm rates EEM at 110 years in ideal dark storage.  Previously
Wilhelm rated it at 30 years.  I have no idea what was behind the change.
(The cynic in me has a few theories, however.)

There are some stories from Florida about EEM yellowing in MUCH less time.
I think Cone has also indicated it yellows in his fade testing.  EEM doesn't
yellow abnormally in my fade testing -- aside from "normal" yellowing due to
optical brighteners burning out.  But this happens to all brightened papers.
Higher heat in the Cone fade test is presumably the source of the
difference.

Heat and humidity appear to be major variables that that can greatly
accelerate the paper's yellowing due to its acidic paper base.

That said, I still like & use EEM for display and uses where long life is
not required.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

"what you Americans quaintly refer to
as a shoot out"

Is this kind of vile sarcasm really necessary on a forum that deals 
with B&W digital printing?.  I strongly suggest to the moderator of 
this board to ban all negative cultural remarks and the bigots that 
wrote them from this forum.  Hate is always a product of ignorance 
and malice. This forum should not be a vehicle for hatred.  The 
number one rule for all human beings sould be mutual respect.  My 2 
cents worth.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> one flaw in your main point is that you seem to be assuming that we 
> are going to be sticking with whatever system we already have 
> forever, but these printers break, CFSs clog etc. etc. and for one 
> reason or another we will be going from one system to another quite 
> often.  I'm still trying to get my 1160 back online, but if I can't 
> do that I'm certainly not going pay a lot of money to fix it and 
even 
> if I replace it with a 1280 I have to reassess my inkset selection 
> etc. etc. as well as consider other printers.  So information on 
> other systems is useful, even if it doesn't drive me to immediately 
> scrap what I have now.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ...
> > But just what would you learn?
> > I mean to say if you liked the Piezo in preference to the other 
> samples,
> > would you dump all your current consumables and buy the Cone 
> product. A
> > costly business, especially if having done the swop, you found 
you 
> gained
> > nothing extra printing your own work.
> > 
> >  Then again just what does (what you Americans quaintly refer to 
> as "a shoot
> > out") really prove? Little or nothing except on that particular 
day 
> printing
> > those particular subjects a panel with a particular set of 
> preferences chose
> > one particular suppliers samples.
> > 
> > Next month another panel could well chose somebody else's.
> > Another month and somebody else gets the nod and so on and so on.
> > 
> > Come sir, if you like what you are currently producing be 
satisfied 

> and stay
> > away from Pandoras box.
> > 
> > Richard
> ...

This remark made me cringe as well and I am English. I just happen to 
live here in California. 

Sierra Gold
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "islandbuck2" 
<islandbuck@b...> wrote:
> "what you Americans quaintly refer to
> as a shoot out"
> 
> Is this kind of vile sarcasm really necessary on a forum that deals 
> with B&W digital printing?.  I strongly suggest to the moderator of 
> this board to ban all negative cultural remarks and the bigots that 
> wrote them from this forum.  Hate is always a product of ignorance 
> and malice. This forum should not be a vehicle for hatred.  The 
> number one rule for all human beings sould be mutual respect.  My 2 
> cents worth.
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
> <markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> > one flaw in your main point is that you seem to be assuming that 
we 
> > are going to be sticking with whatever system we already have 
> > forever, but these printers break, CFSs clog etc. etc. and for 
one 
> > reason or another we will be going from one system to another 
quite 
> > often.  I'm still trying to get my 1160 back online, but if I 
can't 
> > do that I'm certainly not going pay a lot of money to fix it and 
> even 
> > if I replace it with a 1280 I have to reassess my inkset 
selection 
> > etc. etc. as well as consider other printers.  So information on 
> > other systems is useful, even if it doesn't drive me to 
immediately 
> > scrap what I have now.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > ...
> > > But just what would you learn?
> > > I mean to say if you liked the Piezo in preference to the other 
> > samples,
> > > would you dump all your current consumables and buy the Cone 
> > product. A
> > > costly business, especially if having done the swop, you found 
> you 
> > gained
> > > nothing extra printing your own work.
> > > 
> > >  Then again just what does (what you Americans quaintly refer 
to 
> > as "a shoot
> > > out") really prove? Little or nothing except on that particular 
> day 
> > printing
> > > those particular subjects a panel with a particular set of 
> > preferences chose
> > > one particular suppliers samples.
> > > 
> > > Next month another panel could well chose somebody else's.
> > > Another month and somebody else gets the nod and so on and so 
on.

> > > 
> > > Come sir, if you like what you are currently producing be 
> satisfied 
> > and stay
> > > away from Pandoras box.
> > > 
> > > Richard
> > ...

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

From: islandbuck2 [mailto:islandbuck@...] 
Sent: 28 February 2004 15:10
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B & W shootout at PMA and DIMA

"what you Americans quaintly refer to
as a shoot out"

Is this kind of vile sarcasm really necessary on a forum that deals 
with B&W digital printing?.  I strongly suggest to the moderator of 
this board to ban all negative cultural remarks and the bigots that 
wrote them from this forum.  Hate is always a product of ignorance 
and malice. This forum should not be a vehicle for hatred.  The 
number one rule for all human beings sould be mutual respect.  My 2 
cents worth.

Are you feeling all right old chap, something you ate is it or perhaps you
have lead a very sheltered life.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

A reminder to all involved on this thread that flames are not allowed under
the group guidelines. This includes posting a flame in return for being
flamed first. Please keep your posts civil and polite. If you have a
personal disagreement with someone, please take it up off-list.   

Continuing to ignore group guidelines will put your group membership or
posting privileges at risk.

Martin Wesley
Group Moderator