Digital BW, The Print

Three questions: 
-Can anyonee comment on well priced high quality Non-inkjet options. 
Like MPIX.com on B&W paper for digital.
-How does black Only on Epson 2200 and Epson 4000 compare to 
installing a Quadtone type set up.
-Most discussion in this forum is around MIS options, how does MIS 
compare to Lyson.

Thanks. I've yet to purchase a system but am getting closer.

Justin

>-Most discussion in this forum is around MIS options, how does MIS
 >compare to Lyson.
 >
 >Thanks. I've yet to purchase a system but am getting closer.
 >
 >Justin
 >


Justin -

IMHO Lyson suffers from too much metamerism, especially the small gamut 
inks.  I went with MIS mostly for that reason.

Regards
Richard

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jtownell"
<jtownell@t...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Three questions: 
> -Can anyonee comment on well priced high quality Non-inkjet
options. 
> Like MPIX.com on B&W paper for digital.
> -How does black Only on Epson 2200 and Epson 4000 compare to 
> installing a Quadtone type set up.
> -Most discussion in this forum is around MIS options, how does MIS 
> compare to Lyson.
> 
> Thanks. I've yet to purchase a system but am getting closer.
> 
> Justin

I have just recently tried the Mpix True Black & White option and I'm
very happy with it. I cannot tell you how their prints look in a
side-by-side comparison 
with a quality inkjet print, however.
Obviously, if you are concerned with making a print and checking the
results immediately, 
this will be a problem, but their turnaround time is quite good - I
have ordered prints on a 
Tuesday night and received them in the Friday mail delivery.

The beauty of this option is the different sizes you can order. How
many of us are able to 
print up to 20 x 30 inch prints at home? The True Black & White paper
option is exactly 
that, so there is no color cast or dithering pattern and it is a true
photographic process, so 
it will last a lifetime.

I have been thinking of buying a system for printing in my home, but
the small amount of 
printing I do doesn't quite justify the expense or complication of a
dedicated B&W printer 
that might take me weeks, months or years to correctly set up. If
some company comes up 
with a printer that will do B&W printing that rivals the quality of
Mpix (or any other online 
photo lab) and makes it affordable and easy to use, I might consider
purchasing a system.

(Why does this forum chop my text so badly? I hate the way the line endings are all over 
the place. Freakin' Yahoo.)

"...so there is no color cast or dithering pattern and it is a true photographic process, so 
it will last a lifetime..."
 
It is not safe to any assumptions about the product just because it is a 'true photographic' process.  Go lookup the ratings on various 'wet' products/processes.
 
Also, there is evidence building that a well done carbon on cotton print will outlast a 'wet' photographic by quite a bit.  Even many of the prints from the 'masters' are not in very good shape now.
 
Tom Baker



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> "...so there is no color cast or dithering pattern and it is a 
true photographic process, so 
> it will last a lifetime..."
>  
> It is not safe to any assumptions about the product just because 
it is a 'true photographic' process.  Go lookup the ratings on 
various 'wet' products/processes.
>  
> Also, there is evidence building that a well done carbon on cotton 
print will outlast a 'wet' photographic by quite a bit.  Even many 
of the prints from the 'masters' are not in very good shape now.
>  
> Tom Baker

Thank you for pointing this out! Does anyone even know what brand of 
paper Mpix uses? Anything but well processed fiber-base hasn't a 
prayer of 'lasting a lifetime' (well, maybe the balance of mine) and 
the only RC paper that does is Fuji Crystal Archive, which of course 
is not B&W. Keep in mind that a company like Mpix MUST machine 
process its RC papers-that brings them up to a commercial standard 
which while consistent, is not even up to the best that RC wet 
papers are capable of-which isn't good enough to begin with.

And on the other hand, while still in its formative stages, RC 
inkjets with glop coating on a good paper have a much better chance 
of lasting a lifetime, and the tonal range and Dmax are outstanding, 
rivaling and perhaps surpassing wet prints. The only shortcoming 
I've seen is in the smoothness of the transitions, and I'm hoping 
that will be  addressed by the next generation of 1.5 to 2.0 
picoliter printers.

Steve Karafyllakis

Steve,

I think they use Kodak Polymax (RC) for their B&W processing.

Carl

On Feb 14, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker
> <tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>> "...so there is no color cast or dithering pattern and it is a
> true photographic process, so
>> it will last a lifetime..."
>>
>> It is not safe to any assumptions about the product just because
> it is a 'true photographic' process.  Go lookup the ratings on
> various 'wet' products/processes.
>>
>> Also, there is evidence building that a well done carbon on cotton
> print will outlast a 'wet' photographic by quite a bit.  Even many
> of the prints from the 'masters' are not in very good shape now.
>>
>> Tom Baker
>
> Thank you for pointing this out! Does anyone even know what brand of
> paper Mpix uses? Anything but well processed fiber-base hasn't a
> prayer of 'lasting a lifetime' (well, maybe the balance of mine) and
> the only RC paper that does is Fuji Crystal Archive, which of course
> is not B&W. Keep in mind that a company like Mpix MUST machine
> process its RC papers-that brings them up to a commercial standard
> which while consistent, is not even up to the best that RC wet
> papers are capable of-which isn't good enough to begin with.
>
> And on the other hand, while still in its formative stages, RC
> inkjets with glop coating on a good paper have a much better chance
> of lasting a lifetime, and the tonal range and Dmax are outstanding,
> rivaling and perhaps surpassing wet prints. The only shortcoming
> I've seen is in the smoothness of the transitions, and I'm hoping
> that will be  addressed by the next generation of 1.5 to 2.0
> picoliter printers.
>
> Steve Karafyllakis
>