Digital BW, The Print

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

  From: Jeff Curto 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 2:47 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Piezography? Or, the state of the state.


  >>>>

  *Is Piezography dead?
  I never used it but there is no reason they didn't upgrade since your experiment

  *Is the Epson 4000 worth the price of admission?

  I run one for a year now and will probably for a long time, sure you can give it a go blindly.

  *Is ImagePrint superior to Roy's QTR? If so, why or how?

  Try QTR first and if..... then it won't be too late to switch to something else
  Thanks in advance for any insights that anyone might have.

  -Jeff Curto


  Michel


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

Jeff-

Excellent questions. I, for one, do not think that Piezo is dead. I've been 
using the various Piezo approach since the beginning and am well aware of the 
problems. Personally, I think Cone's inks are excellent and his new ICC 
approach is a valuable step forward for printing grayscale off the OEM path. I think, 
and hope, that we'll see more developments like this. I'm not, in any way, 
defending Cone but it has been my experience that many of the printing issues 
attributed to Piezo have more to do with the printers. Many photographers are 
using consumer grade printers that have inherent issues out of the box; some of 
the these issues, like banding for example, aren't obvious when using the 
Epson dither and printer gamma bias, but are noticeable when the tonal scale is 
linearized and resolution is improved. I, for one, deeply appreciate Cone's 
continuing innovation. As I do Roy Harrington and Paul Roark, among others.

I've printing with a number of Epsons and consider the 4000 one of the best 
yet. I wish the paper feed issues were better addressed, but the printer is 
convenient to use and produces excellent prints; both with the OEM print driver 
and all the current desktop RIP's.

ImagePrint is not superior to QRT because they are essentially different 
animals. QTR is built on open source code and available as freeware. If you use 
the supplied printing curves the approach is very close to plug and play. 
ImagePrint is a feature-rich commercial application. If you want or need the 
features, and you do not want to purchase the software/hardware or tackle the 
learning curve associated with building linearized custom printing profiles yourself, 
it is also a convenient package. If you do want to "roll your own" the 
ColorBurst RIP is an excellent choice.

QTR using printing curves. ImagePrint and ColorBurst use printer profiles. 
All of them, used properly, produce excellent prints. For the price, QTR is an 
excellent entry point.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to correspond with you on or off 
list.



Bill Kennedy
Associate Professor of Photocommunications
St. Edward's University
512/448-8680


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

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

From: BKPhoto@... [mailto:BKPhoto@...]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 12:59 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Piezography? Or, the state of the state.
 
Jeff-
<snip>
  QTR is built on open source code and available as freeware. If you use 
<snip>
 
**Clarification.  What QTR is built on is freeware, not QTR.
 
 
<snip>
For the price, QTR is an excellent entry point.
 
**Agreed, $50 is very reasonable.

 


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