Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

I posted this over on BW6 in response to a lot of complaining (by 
relatively few people actually) regarding problems with desktop 
printers/Piezo inks.  Sorry if it's a bit long, but someone from this 
list requested I crosspost.



I wrote about this some time ago, when I first installed my 7000, and 
don't want to cover the same ground to any significant degree, ie.  "is 
it worth the price?  How much better are the prints?"  etc, etc.  But 
in the interest of providing information I'll add the following.

I for one have never had a "greenie" problem or odd posterization/lack 
of midtone contrast, or any of these other issues.  I have used an 1160 
for many months with a CIS and made hundreds of prints with it.  Lucky 
for me I suppose...  I HAVE always noted, and I'm surprised at how 
little this is described on this list, that the prints are always a bit 
green when they come out of the printer, and shift to warm/sepia after 
a couple days in the light.  Every one of them.  So if I have an issue 
at all it's that the color is warm.  I happen to like it, though it 
would be nice to have the option to make dead-neutral prints.  I'm not 
obsessing over it, however.

To the point:  I made the decision about 3 months ago, based on seeing 
spectacular output from it, to purchase the Epson 7000.  I too wanted 
to avoid going the Windows route, having seen pretty awful experiences 
friends of mine were having in general use with their machines, but I 
was prepared mentally to go that route if necessary.  I wanted a 
printer I could rely on professionally, and thought it was unwise to 
place my 1160 in that situation. It seems just plain foolish to take a 
printer meant for the con/prosumer market, stick an ink technology in 
it that's still new and certainly evolving, and then start courting 
clients. No matter how great the prints were when it was working 
properly. So I must admit to a certain skepticism when I read people 
complaining that it's IJM's fault alone they can't print or deliver on 
promises to clients.  Not that I'm insensitive to this plight, I too 
would be distressed if it were me.  But I doubt the early film 
emulsions worked without problem either. And anyone back then would 
have been naive to expect it to do as well. It's taken 100 years to get 
that one right.

Back to the 7000. Attempting to avoid the expense of the Pro24 software 
and Windows box, I gave the MIS inks/Roark workflow a try.  It was 
certainly cost effective, so what did I have to lose?  Paul doesn't 
have curves for the Mac/7000 so I started testing with him.  I soon ran 
out of patience with it, however, though I'm sure he'll get it 
eventually.  Coupled with the fact that there are NO paper profiles in 
his approach (meaning lots and lots of ongoing tinkering), and the fact 
that, from what I was beginning to see, the Epson driver can't match 
the output performance of the Pro 24 RIP. And although I know some are 
happy with this workflow, it seemed rather unintuitive and tedious- 
trying to match monitor and print, etc.  Problems also arose with the 
MIS CFS system, it started sucking air into the lines, so I dumped 
that. I wanted to be making prints at any rate, so $1600 for Piezo 
software and $550 for inks got spent, and I borrowed a Windows laptop 
to see if I could run the system from it. It worked beautifully until I 
attempted to make a large (20x24) print, and then things slowed way 
down.  Turns out that CPU speed and memory management (you need Windows 
2000, not ME or 98) were the culprits. So I went ahead with the final 
step, which was to buy a desktop Windows box.  It now runs great, and 
since all I use the dreaded Windows box for is a print server, it stays 
out of trouble.  But based on the experiences with that so far, I won't 
ever give up my Mac for regular use.

So you can do the math, yes, it's an investment.  As to whether its 
worth it for you only you can decide.  I recently exhibited carbon 
prints for the first time, alongside silver prints BTW, and the carbon 
prints that sold have already gotten me down the road to paid off.  And 
I marvel at each and every print that rolls out of the 7000, from 8x10 
to 24x30.  I now have a whole lot of hi-res scans to get, ie. most of 
my portfolio, but I regard that as an expense of doing business.  
Printing large from less than 100 MB files (from 4x5 negs) means a 
sacrifice in quality that is apparent with this system. I could easily 
have chosen to print only in the darkroom, but now I have the option to 
go either way, and with some of my more difficult-to-print images, the 
digital prints are better. "Feasible" is maybe a better word...

This is a system that works well, better than the desktop versions 
including the 3000, both in terms of output quality, and, seemingly, 
reliability.  I've not heard of difficulties with clogged machines with 
other Piezo 7000 users. That doesn't mean there won't be, it's too soon 
for me to tell. I have one problem with printing in a certain density 
range, but that appears to be a hardware issue, and the printer may 
need Epson's attention.  It doesn't seem to be Jon's product that's at 
fault.

I'd certainly love to see this work directly from my Mac, but I don't 
think its feasible to expect IJM to develop anything for System 9, 
since that's due to be superceded by OS X.  Perhaps they will deliver 
for that platform.  Creating software RIP's is an investment and 
requires a lot of time.  At least IJM has a software product, as 
opposed to MIS, which seems to rely on the good intentions of certain 
users who develop a workflow.  A fairly lackluster approach if you ask 
me.

So I hope this provides some useful input from one user who is 
satisfied with the large format system.  It does take a committment. 
Its costly. Its not for everyone.  Even this is young technology- you 
should keep that clearly in mind.  Otherwise fire up the enlarger,I 
think there will be less whining for the members of this list to have 
to read...

Best,
Phil
http://philbard.com