Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/14/2004 10:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> the ripoff is in having to spend $400-$500 to be able to get the printer to
> do what the manufacturer claimed/claims it can do - i.e. print B&W
> 
> On top of which, for Imageprint - while it does, basically, do the job it
> supposed to do fairly well , it is one of the clunkiest and worst designed
> pieces of software out there - especially if you are paying $1500 to $2000
> or more for the "full" version.
> 
> there is no real reason - apart from complacent market dominance - why Epson
> could not produce a printer that actually does this out of the box.
> 
> tim a

Everyone has the option not to buy it or buy another RIP, or go learn to 
write C++ code and do it themselves. 
Otherwise, one has to look at investment value, with the assumption that 
larger prints sell for larger bucks and the market can bear the higher 
price.........or maybe they should all cost 2 grand, even for small printers????

I paid $9000 apiece for Kodak 8x10 color dye sub printers 8 years ago and 
$5,000 per license for software to run it along with $15,000 for a 1.5 megapixel 
camer with moire, noise and crappy color, so I think these Epsons and most 
$300 digicams are wonderful and can produce work that puts my investment of 8 
years ago to shame. You have nothing to whine about, you should be celebrate 
having tools this good and this cheap.

As for your second point, the Epson 4000 DOES do good B&W right out of the 
box, so that makes your statment obsolete.

The whining/double standard at play here also has to do with the fact that 
all serious amateurs had separate color and B&W darkrooms/processes and would 
never dare to print B&W on color papers. Now we can and should be happy about 
it.

Claude







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

> As for your second point, the Epson 4000 DOES do good B&W right out of 
the 
> box, so that makes your statment obsolete.


Hang on now.  I have an Epson 4000.  It does produce "good" B&W out of the =

box and in fact produces slightly better B&W out of the box than the 2200 o=
r 
the 9600 (I have the 9600 currently and had a 2200).  But the 4000 does not=
 
produce neutral B&W, nor does it produce non-metamerismic B&W.  The 
prints are still warm and still have color shifting in different light.  So=
, I'm not 
contesting that the 4000 is a bit better in this regard, but from my experi=
ence, it 
wouldn't be accurate for anyone to see the 4000 as a vast improvement for B=
&
W.  For exhibition or sale quality B&W, I would not be satisfied w. the 400=
0's 
performance out of the box.

I don't want to over-lawyer this, but let's look at what Epson says regardi=
ng the 
4000 and B&W (taken from their website):

*	Significantly improves the printer's gray balance while eliminating color=
 
casts 

Incorrect.  "Eliminates" is an objective standard meaning that something no=
 
longer exists.  Untrue -- there is still a clearly noticeable color cast.

*	Dramatically improves the midtones and highlights for smoother transition=
s 

Maybe.  No comment on this one.

*	Enhances the ICC profiling process for ColorSync™ and ICM™ workflows

Uh, OK, I'll give them this one, since it's so vague that it doesn't mean 
anything.

*Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing

Incorrect again.  I suppose I'd have to convene an expert panel, but the 
proliferation of 3rd pty inks and RIPs is sufficient evidence that the nati=
ve B&W
is not "professional level."  Otherwise, why would all of these professiona=
ls be 
spending thousands of extra dollars.  I do not know of and have not read a =

statement by a single professional photographer who produces exhibition or =

sale B&W just using the native Epson driver and ultrachrome inks (with the =

possible exceptions of Greg Gorman and Vincent Versace (paid Epson 
spokespersons) who I bet, if you sat them down in a room, would admit that =

they have reservations regarding B&W out of the box w. ultrachrome printers=
).

*	Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover or colorcas=
ts 

Please.  I assume I don't need to detail why this is untrue or at least 
misleading.  I guess "little" is relative, so yes, compared to say a printi=
ng 
method that produces a lime green color cast for B&W, this statement could =

be objectively true.  And I'll admit that B&W is "consistent" in that you 
consistently get non-neutral metamerismic prints using the native driver.

*	Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white& prints 

Reduced compared to what?  The 2200/7600/9600?  Perhaps slightly, if 
measured with an electron microscope, so this statement could be seen as 
literally true.  But still misleading.

*	Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 

OK.

*	Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white prints

Nope, unless you're selling to someone who's colorblind or likes color shif=
ting 
in different lighting conditions.  And "neutral" is a word with an objectiv=
e 
connotation not based solely on subjective perception, and it's clear that =
B&W 
w. the 4000 (and the other ultrachrome printers) is not objectively neutral=
.

I have no idea why the formatting is all whacked out on my last message.  
Sorry.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" <
chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> 
> > As for your second point, the Epson 4000 DOES do good B&W right out of =

> the 
> > box, so that makes your statment obsolete.
> 
> 
> Hang on now.  I have an Epson 4000.  It does produce "good" B&W out of 
the =
> 
> box and in fact produces slightly better B&W out of the box than the 2200=
 o=
> r 
> the 9600 (I have the 9600 currently and had a 2200).  But the 4000 does 
not=
>  
> produce neutral B&W, nor does it produce non-metamerismic B&W.  The 
> prints are still warm and still have color shifting in different light.  =
So=
> , I'm not 
> contesting that the 4000 is a bit better in this regard, but from my expe=
ri=
> ence, it 
> wouldn't be accurate for anyone to see the 4000 as a vast improvement for=
 
B=
> &
> W.  For exhibition or sale quality B&W, I would not be satisfied w. the 4=
00=
> 0's 
> performance out of the box.
> 
> I don't want to over-lawyer this, but let's look at what Epson says regar=
di=
> ng the 
> 4000 and B&W (taken from their website):
> 
> *	Significantly improves the printer's gray balance while eliminating col=
or=
>  
> casts 
> 
> Incorrect.  "Eliminates" is an objective standard meaning that something =
no=
>  
> longer exists.  Untrue -- there is still a clearly noticeable color cast.=

> 
> *	Dramatically improves the midtones and highlights for smoother 
transition=
> s 
> 
> Maybe.  No comment on this one.
> 
> *	Enhances the ICC profiling process for ColorSync™ and ICM™ workflows
> 
> Uh, OK, I'll give them this one, since it's so vague that it doesn't mean=
 
> anything.
> 
> *Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing
> 
> Incorrect again.  I suppose I'd have to convene an expert panel, but the =

> proliferation of 3rd pty inks and RIPs is sufficient evidence that the na=
ti=
> ve B&W
> is not "professional level."  Otherwise, why would all of these professio=
na=
> ls be 
> spending thousands of extra dollars.  I do not know of and have not read =
a =
> 
> statement by a single professional photographer who produces exhibition 
or =
> 
> sale B&W just using the native Epson driver and ultrachrome inks (with th=
e 
=
> 
> possible exceptions of Greg Gorman and Vincent Versace (paid Epson 
> spokespersons) who I bet, if you sat them down in a room, would admit tha=
t 
=
> 
> they have reservations regarding B&W out of the box w. ultrachrome 
printers=
> ).
> 
> *	Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover or colorc=
as=
> ts 
> 
> Please.  I assume I don't need to detail why this is untrue or at least 
> misleading.  I guess "little" is relative, so yes, compared to say a prin=
ti=
> ng 
> method that produces a lime green color cast for B&W, this statement coul=
d 
=
> 
> be objectively true.  And I'll admit that B&W is "consistent" in that you=
 
> consistently get non-neutral metamerismic prints using the native driver.=

> 
> *	Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white& prints 
> 
> Reduced compared to what?  The 2200/7600/9600?  Perhaps slightly, if 
> measured with an electron microscope, so this statement could be seen as =

> literally true.  But still misleading.
> 
> *	Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 
> 
> OK.
> 
> *	Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white prints
> 
> Nope, unless you're selling to someone who's colorblind or likes color sh=
if=
> ting 
> in different lighting conditions.  And "neutral" is a word with an object=
iv=
> e 
> connotation not based solely on subjective perception, and it's clear tha=
t =
> B&W 
> w. the 4000 (and the other ultrachrome printers) is not objectively neutr=
al=
> .

Well, putting aside the profanity and unnecessary agressiveness in 
your post, I'll respond by saying that I'm certainly no Andrew Rodney 
(nor perhaps not even the mighty Scott Graham) when it comes to Epson 
printers, color management, etc.  But I have been at this for quite a 
while now, having bought the 2200 when it first came out and having 
worked with Photoshop since the early 1990s.  And I stand by my 
original statement: the 4000 does not produce neutral or non-
metamerismic B&W out of the box, nor have I read ANY review that says 
it does (see the reviews at both Photo-i and Luminous Landscape as 
well as endless posts by people who have a 4000).  I don't know how 
you can say otherwise.  Do you even have a 4000?  Perhaps you could 
explain your findings for the benefit of those of us who don't know 
what the hell we are doing.

Besides, the point of my post and others was that it does not produce 
neutral, non-metamerismic B&W OUT OF THE BOX, which implies that one 
doesn't have a degree in color management.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> Then you don't know what the hell you are doing.
> 
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
>  
>  But the 4000 does not=
> >  
> > produce neutral B&W, nor does it produce non-metamerismic B&W.  
The 
> > prints are still warm and still have color shifting in different 
light.  So=
> > , I'm not 
> > contesting that the 4000 is a bit better in this regard, but from 
my experi=
> > ence, it 
> > wouldn't be accurate for anyone to see the 4000 as a vast 
improvement for B=
> > &

I retract part of my statement: I see from your other thread that you 
do indeed have a 4000 (and a problem with agression).  I'll further 
add that I am quite familiar with the "printer color management/color 
controls" method of printing B&W, having used it for almost 2 years 
with the 2200.  I'll also add a tidbit for consideration:

(1) From Photo-i's review: "There is no doubt that the Gray Balancer 
has added something to the b/w pictures, I managed to remove the 
slight warm cast and produce a near neutral print - I say near 
neutral to cover myself, but all said and done the prints are about 
as neutral as I would want."

Note that he said WITH the gray balancer, he gets a NEAR neutral 
print.  The gray balancer is not an out of the box solution for North 
Americans, since Epson won't let you have it, and it doesn't run on 
OS X (for those of us using Macs).




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> Well, putting aside the profanity and unnecessary agressiveness in 
> your post, I'll respond by saying that I'm certainly no Andrew 
Rodney 
> (nor perhaps not even the mighty Scott Graham) when it comes to 
Epson 
> printers, color management, etc.  But I have been at this for quite 
a 
> while now, having bought the 2200 when it first came out and having 
> worked with Photoshop since the early 1990s.  And I stand by my 
> original statement: the 4000 does not produce neutral or non-
> metamerismic B&W out of the box, nor have I read ANY review that 
says 
> it does (see the reviews at both Photo-i and Luminous Landscape as 
> well as endless posts by people who have a 4000).  I don't know how 
> you can say otherwise.  Do you even have a 4000?  Perhaps you could 
> explain your findings for the benefit of those of us who don't know 
> what the hell we are doing.
> 
> Besides, the point of my post and others was that it does not 
produce 
> neutral, non-metamerismic B&W OUT OF THE BOX, which implies that 
one 
> doesn't have a degree in color management.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
> <gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> > Then you don't know what the hell you are doing.
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> > <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> >  
> >  But the 4000 does not=
> > >  
> > > produce neutral B&W, nor does it produce non-metamerismic B&W.  
> The 
> > > prints are still warm and still have color shifting in 
different 
> light.  So=
> > > , I'm not 
> > > contesting that the 4000 is a bit better in this regard, but 
from 

> my experi=
> > > ence, it 
> > > wouldn't be accurate for anyone to see the 4000 as a vast 
> improvement for B=
> > > &