Digital BW, The Print

I was reading a forum on the R2400. Someone was speculating that with 
the new imporved B&W available on that printer, that third party inks 
would soon become obsolete. My knee jerk reaction was that this is a 
real possibility. Then I thought further. Even if Epson optomizes the 
system to make really great prints on their paper, I don't see them 
ever fine tuning it to all the different fine art papers out there, 
and since there will more than likely always be a demand for the 
ability to use a variety of papers, we will prbably need the third 
party inks to go with them.

There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be reasonably 
priced, that's where they make their money.  The real danger here is 
having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all 
others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some 
respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only 
acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to 
sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is 
going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few 
months back.

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Jasutis" 
<jimj1946@y...> wrote:

> I was reading a forum on the R2400. Someone was speculating that with 
> the new imporved B&W available on that printer, that third party inks 
> would soon become obsolete. My knee jerk reaction was that this is a 
> real possibility. Then I thought further. Even if Epson optomizes the 
> system to make really great prints on their paper, I don't see them 
> ever fine tuning it to all the different fine art papers out there, 
> and since there will more than likely always be a demand for the 
> ability to use a variety of papers, we will prbably need the third 
> party inks to go with them.

Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

>There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be reasonably 
>priced, that's where they make their money.  The real danger here is 
>having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all 
>others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some 
>respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only 
>acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to 
>sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is 
>going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few 
>months back.
>
>Steve Karafyllakis
>  
>

Which made me suggest to Paul Roark that it is time that MIS together 
with one of the art paper manufacturers should have its inks tested by 
Wilhelm on a widely used paper. That is the only way to keep some 
competition in this business. I also think that we shouldn't hesitate to 
add some money too if it is that expensive. In my opinion it should be 
Wilhelm who does the testing. That way MIS can ride on teh wave of 
Epson's claims as well. One or two papers, a universal quad ink and the 
MIS 7600 to check the colors/toners also.

Ernst

Somehow I think competition could come in the form of supplying
more profiles for more papers than Epson would.

Just a silly example, but I've read many posts over recent months
about folks wanting to substitute Eboni for a Epsons MK. Then
they ask if the Epson profiles will "work" for color stuff, and the
answer is "roll your own profiles."

Well, that's silly. The vast majority of of the potential market will
never roll their own profiles or buy a densitometer or whatever.

Witness the seeming popularity of the C84/C86 and MIS EZ inks
combo.

So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
ton of cool papers.

The R&D shouldn't be all that great, and in fact, once the
inkset was all in place, I imagine that many folks on this very
list would likely contribute profiles for different papers.

I think such a "product" would greatly interest folks who want
to use one printer to do dual B&W/color duty, but with a
preference for B&W on a variety of papers.

There's all sorts of ways to compete by carving out a niche
and growing it.

The C86 idea was very, very cool. I think there's another product
"between" that elegant and simple solution and the more involved
roll-your-own ink/paper combos and with your own custom profiles.

Scott



Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>
> >There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be reasonably
> >priced, that's where they make their money. The real danger here is
> >having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all
> >others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some
> >respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only
> >acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to
> >sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is
> >going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few
> >months back.
> >
> >Steve Karafyllakis
> >
> >
>
> Which made me suggest to Paul Roark that it is time that MIS together
> with one of the art paper manufacturers should have its inks tested by
> Wilhelm on a widely used paper. That is the only way to keep some
> competition in this business. I also think that we shouldn't hesitate to
> add some money too if it is that expensive. In my opinion it should be
> Wilhelm who does the testing. That way MIS can ride on teh wave of
> Epson's claims as well. One or two papers, a universal quad ink and the
> MIS 7600 to check the colors/toners also.
>
> Ernst
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

I think this is a good idea-we have to look at the bigger picture. 
99% of the art-involved world have never heard of MIS and think of 
third party inks as those junky refill kits you buy at office supply 
stores. The legitimacy of some hard numbers generated by Wilhelm 
could help a lot in the future. I would also be willing to 
contribute to such a project if need be.

Steven Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> >There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be 
reasonably 
> >priced, that's where they make their money.  The real danger here 
is 
> >having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which 
all 
> >others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some 
> >respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the 
only 
> >acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become 
difficult to 
> >sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson 
is 
> >going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a 
few 
> >months back.
> >
> >Steve Karafyllakis
> >  
> >
> 
> Which made me suggest to Paul Roark that it is time that MIS 
together 
> with one of the art paper manufacturers should have its inks 
tested by 
> Wilhelm on a widely used paper. That is the only way to keep some 
> competition in this business. I also think that we shouldn't 
hesitate to 
> add some money too if it is that expensive. In my opinion it 
should be 
> Wilhelm who does the testing. That way MIS can ride on teh wave of 
> Epson's claims as well. One or two papers, a universal quad ink 
and the 

> MIS 7600 to check the colors/toners also.
> 
> Ernst

> 
> I was reading a forum on the R2400. Someone was speculating that with
> the new imporved B&W available on that printer, that third party inks
> would soon become obsolete...


I really doubt third party inks will disappear.  

Price has already been mentioned, and I'd expect MIS to have a 2400 clone
inkset in a short while.

The C86 is about 1/10 the price of a 2400.  I'm not sure it's sales will be
affected at all. 

In fact, once Wilhelm has tests of the B&W mode for the 2400, I think B&W
inkjet printing as a legitimate competitor to silver will be enhanced.  This
could expand the entire B&W inkjet market and increase MIS's sales of B&W
inksets.

The B&W inksets will continue to sell into the older 13" printer base also.

At the large format end, I think many will use the older printers with UT7.
The advantages of being able to easily print on both matte and glossy paper
are significant.

I do, however, expect the 2400 to take most of the new market for 13" B&W
printers.  But, again, a year from now it may be that MIS's sales of ink
into that printer base will expand.  Most of it will probably be 2400 clone
ink and not UT7, however.

I just received some 4800 test strips from Steve for fade testing.  It'll
take me a couple of months to do this.  If the MIS inks do well, I'd hope
MIS will pay for a test that would have more credibility than mine, but who
knows.  I think even an RIT test where 2400 inks were also tested might do
the trick.  I suspect the UT7 inks will do very well and will continue to
hold the high ground.

In short, I would not worry about third party inks.  They'll be around for a
long time.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

>Somehow I think competition could come in the form of supplying
>more profiles for more papers than Epson would.
>
>Just a silly example, but I've read many posts over recent months
>about folks wanting to substitute Eboni for a Epsons MK. Then
>they ask if the Epson profiles will "work" for color stuff, and the
>answer is "roll your own profiles."
>
>Well, that's silly. The vast majority of of the potential market will
>never roll their own profiles or buy a densitometer or whatever.
>
>Witness the seeming popularity of the C84/C86 and MIS EZ inks
>combo.
>
>So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
>that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
>printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
>prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
>installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
>ton of cool papers.
>
>The R&D shouldn't be all that great, and in fact, once the
>inkset was all in place, I imagine that many folks on this very
>list would likely contribute profiles for different papers.
>
>I think such a "product" would greatly interest folks who want
>to use one printer to do dual B&W/color duty, but with a
>preference for B&W on a variety of papers.
>
>There's all sorts of ways to compete by carving out a niche
>and growing it.
>
>The C86 idea was very, very cool. I think there's another product
>"between" that elegant and simple solution and the more involved
>roll-your-own ink/paper combos and with your own custom profiles.
>
>Scott
>
>
>
>Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be reasonably
>>>priced, that's where they make their money. The real danger here is
>>>having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all
>>>others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some
>>>respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only
>>>acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to
>>>sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is
>>>going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few
>>>months back.
>>>
>>>Steve Karafyllakis
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Which made me suggest to Paul Roark that it is time that MIS together
>>with one of the art paper manufacturers should have its inks tested by
>>Wilhelm on a widely used paper. That is the only way to keep some
>>competition in this business. I also think that we shouldn't hesitate to
>>add some money too if it is that expensive. In my opinion it should be
>>Wilhelm who does the testing. That way MIS can ride on teh wave of
>>Epson's claims as well. One or two papers, a universal quad ink and the
>>MIS 7600 to check the colors/toners also.
>>
>>Ernst
>>
>>    
>>
There's little doubt in my mind that the  quad inksets of MIS are 
fadeproof but Epson has a strong marketing point with its "official" 
Wilhelm numbers. There's no way to get round that other then have them 
tested by Wilhelm or RIT by the same standard.

That isn't all what has to be done. MIS could adopt QTR more than it 
does now. Bowhaus is already working with Lyson. Offer curves for most 
models and possibly a cheaper B&W curve creation instrument than the 
Spectrometers and "secondhand" densitometers now in use. Lots of cheap 
colorimeters but no cheap densitometer possible today for that simple 
task ? Streamline their B&W inkline a bit as the variety is overwhelming 
and with QTR a wider range of models could work with fewer ink types.

Ernst

Yes, I imagine a QTR + MIS marketing and profiles hookup
might be quite beneficial to both MIS and the QTR folks.

Scott

Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>Scott McLoughlin wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Somehow I think competition could come in the form of supplying
>>more profiles for more papers than Epson would.
>>
>>Just a silly example, but I've read many posts over recent months
>>about folks wanting to substitute Eboni for a Epsons MK. Then
>>they ask if the Epson profiles will "work" for color stuff, and the
>>answer is "roll your own profiles."
>>
>>Well, that's silly. The vast majority of of the potential market will
>>never roll their own profiles or buy a densitometer or whatever.
>>
>>Witness the seeming popularity of the C84/C86 and MIS EZ inks
>>combo.
>>
>>So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
>>that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
>>printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
>>prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
>>installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
>>ton of cool papers.
>>
>>The R&D shouldn't be all that great, and in fact, once the
>>inkset was all in place, I imagine that many folks on this very
>>list would likely contribute profiles for different papers.
>>
>>I think such a "product" would greatly interest folks who want
>>to use one printer to do dual B&W/color duty, but with a
>>preference for B&W on a variety of papers.
>>
>>There's all sorts of ways to compete by carving out a niche
>>and growing it.
>>
>>The C86 idea was very, very cool. I think there's another product
>>"between" that elegant and simple solution and the more involved
>>roll-your-own ink/paper combos and with your own custom profiles.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>
>>Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>There is also the price factor-Epson inks will never be reasonably
>>>>priced, that's where they make their money. The real danger here is
>>>>having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all
>>>>others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some
>>>>respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only
>>>>acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to
>>>>sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is
>>>>going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few
>>>>months back.
>>>>
>>>>Steve Karafyllakis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Which made me suggest to Paul Roark that it is time that MIS together
>>>with one of the art paper manufacturers should have its inks tested by
>>>Wilhelm on a widely used paper. That is the only way to keep some
>>>competition in this business. I also think that we shouldn't hesitate to
>>>add some money too if it is that expensive. In my opinion it should be
>>>Wilhelm who does the testing. That way MIS can ride on teh wave of
>>>Epson's claims as well. One or two papers, a universal quad ink and the
>>>MIS 7600 to check the colors/toners also.
>>>
>>>Ernst
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>There's little doubt in my mind that the  quad inksets of MIS are 
>fadeproof but Epson has a strong marketing point with its "official" 
>Wilhelm numbers. There's no way to get round that other then have them 
>tested by Wilhelm or RIT by the same standard.
>
>That isn't all what has to be done. MIS could adopt QTR more than it 
>does now. Bowhaus is already working with Lyson. Offer curves for most 
>models and possibly a cheaper B&W curve creation instrument than the 
>Spectrometers and "secondhand" densitometers now in use. Lots of cheap 
>colorimeters but no cheap densitometer possible today for that simple 
>task ? Streamline their B&W inkline a bit as the variety is overwhelming 
>and with QTR a wider range of models could work with fewer ink types.
>
>Ernst
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>  
>

Hello Jim,

>...speculating that with the new imporved B&W available on that
>printer, that third party inks would soon become obsolete. 
>...all the different fine art papers out there

I think ultimately it will depend on the papers.  Follow my logic
here: I have seen how over the past couple of years as more and more
people have gotten interested in BW digi printing, many new names have
appeared in the forum, and it seems to be no longer primarily fine art
types.  Forum members now seem to fall into two broad camps, those who
are fine art oriented and prefer matte papers with MK, and those who
seem happy with the glossy type papers and PK, especially because of
the greater Dmax.  I can't tell for sure, but I get the impression
that these glossy users are the same kinds of photographers that used
RC paper for darkroom prints, which is a very large market segment and
probably what Epson is aiming at.  Right now the fine art matte users
seem to be holding on to what they've been doing, and probably will
for some time.  

However, I think if someone invents a paper, cotton or otherwise, that
truly looks and feels like ADFBG, and is truly archival, and truly
allows a range of tones using truly archival Epson inks, then the fine
art matte/MK folks might switch en masse and 3p ink folks could be in
trouble.  Certainly the 3p ink folks must be watching developments
very closely.

But in reality, there probably will always be many good paper choices
and 3p ink folks will always be figuring ways to go one step better,
so I think there will always be a 3p ink and paper market of some
sort.  But it seems clear to me that the digi BW market is more and
more becoming mainstream and is taking on the two-sided coin aspect
that existed in the film/silver market - RC vs Fiber orientation.  And
I think it is this orientation, the paper, that will be a major
driving force that will affect the ink market.  I think the ink will
follow the paper, but how this will all play out is anyone's guess...

These ruminations are just impressions I have from long term forum
reading and watching industry trends.  I'll be interested to hear
others' thoughts. 

I am currently revising my "Great Paper Chase" article, testing some
new papers, and have been on the phone with some paper vendors - I
have some interesting observations that make me think the cotton matte
papers will keep up, but will post them in a separate thread.


Regards,
Clayton


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven
> Karafyllakis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:27 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete?
> 
> The real danger here is
> having one company's inks become the defacto standard by which all
> others are judged. Even if some 3rd party inks are better in some
> respect, (eg lifespan) where Epson inks to be perceived as the only
> acceptable standard for fine art inkjets it could become difficult to
> sell prints made with anything else. I expect that's where Epson is
> going with the 'Archival Certification Program' they announced a few
> months back.

Oh come now, all you do is tell your customers that you are using Epson
inks. Are they really going to check up.

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. ]

So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
>>that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
>>printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
>>prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
>>installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
>>ton of cool papers.

That is a very smart idea. They should also pay Roy something for using his 
technology to sell their products and hire him to make the profiles. Or mabie 
he is satisfied with the publicity and the independece he has now.

I've noticed how Cone's new 7 tone inkset will be designed around using QTR 
for all of those thousands of us who don't have Studio Print. QTR is becoming 
a defacto standard for mono rips and the control of these new inksets simply 
because of its ease of operation, functionality, and of course, price. It's 
interesting how the market works. Something that starts out underground if it 
is good enought eventually surfaces for the masses.

John

Thanks! Before I got CFS and started specializing in couch potato
life, I ran a tech product design and development company.

I really miss full bore, hardcore product planning :-)

Scott

john dean wrote:

> So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
> >>that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
> >>printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
> >>prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
> >>installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
> >>ton of cool papers.
>
> That is a very smart idea. They should also pay Roy something for 
> using his
> technology to sell their products and hire him to make the profiles. 
> Or mabie
> he is satisfied with the publicity and the independece he has now.
>
> I've noticed how Cone's new 7 tone inkset will be designed around 
> using QTR
> for all of those thousands of us who don't have Studio Print. QTR is 
> becoming
> a defacto standard for mono rips and the control of these new inksets 
> simply
> because of its ease of operation, functionality, and of course, price. 
> It's
> interesting how the market works. Something that starts out 
> underground if it
> is good enought eventually surfaces for the masses.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott 
McLoughlin <scott@a...> wrote:
> Somehow I think competition could come in the form of supplying
> more profiles for more papers than Epson would.
> 
> Just a silly example, but I've read many posts over recent months
> about folks wanting to substitute Eboni for a Epsons MK. Then
> they ask if the Epson profiles will "work" for color stuff, and the
> answer is "roll your own profiles."

Unfortunately that is the right answer, silly or not. The other 
alternative for desktop machines at least, is to swap out inks when 
you want to do B&W. Clayton and others have been having good success 
at fooling the 2200 into not doing an ink charging cycle, so its 
possible to do with out waste.

> 
> Well, that's silly. The vast majority of of the potential market 
will
> never roll their own profiles or buy a densitometer or whatever.
> 
> Witness the seeming popularity of the C84/C86 and MIS EZ inks
> combo.
> 
> So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
> that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
> printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
> prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
> installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
> ton of cool papers.
> 
It's not that hard; I've had Eboni in my 7600 for a year, and just 
recently replaced the MIS LK with my own custom neutral LK. I keep 
MIS color Ultraclones in the rest of the slots for color work. I've 
been using MonacoEZcolor to re-profile for each change, and while 
there are better (and more expensive) profiling suites available, 
Monaco works well enough most of the time. The package from MIS 
you're suggesting is a good idea, but people would still need to do 
custom curves and profiles for non-supported papers. And there are 
many new papers becoming available, you can't reasonably expect a 
small company like MIS to keep up with them all.

Carving out a niche in this case is digging yourself into a hole: it 
doesn't answer the recognition/legitimacy issue in the broader art 
world, and as Epson gains market share, companies like MIS will 
lose, and become progressively less able to support the R&D 
neccessary to keep up. There is of course the wild card factor: some 
enterprising individual in Japan might sell the ink formula to a 
Chinsese ink maker, but even if we have the exact same inks under a 
different name convincing the art public they are just as good will 
still require hard numbers, preferrably generated by Wilhelm.

Steve Karafyllakis

So what might such an inkset look like on a 2200 and 2400?

Dual duty color/B&W but with better B&W capabilities.

Simple clones? Or is there some particular ink configuration
that under the control of QTR would be superior? Some way
to better manage glossy printing on a 2200?

Scott

john dean wrote:

> So what if MIS put together an inkset for the 2200 (2400, etc.)
> >>that was less expensive than Epson's, did a better job at B&W
> >>printing with QTR, did as good or at least a credible job at color
> >>prints, and then came with a little downloadable application that
> >>installed a ton of canned profiles (QTR and Epson driver) for a
> >>ton of cool papers.
>
> That is a very smart idea. They should also pay Roy something for 
> using his
> technology to sell their products and hire him to make the profiles. 
> Or mabie
> he is satisfied with the publicity and the independece he has now.
>
> I've noticed how Cone's new 7 tone inkset will be designed around 
> using QTR
> for all of those thousands of us who don't have Studio Print. QTR is 
> becoming
> a defacto standard for mono rips and the control of these new inksets 
> simply
> because of its ease of operation, functionality, and of course, price. 
> It's
> interesting how the market works. Something that starts out 
> underground if it
> is good enought eventually surfaces for the masses.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Comments below.

Steven Karafyllakis wrote:

> It's not that hard; I've had Eboni in my 7600 for a year, and just
> recently replaced the MIS LK with my own custom neutral LK. I keep
> MIS color Ultraclones in the rest of the slots for color work. I've
> been using MonacoEZcolor to re-profile for each change, and while
> there are better (and more expensive) profiling suites available,
> Monaco works well enough most of the time. The package from MIS
> you're suggesting is a good idea, but people would still need to do
> custom curves and profiles for non-supported papers. And there are
> many new papers becoming available, you can't reasonably expect a
> small company like MIS to keep up with them all.


MIS could provide a clearing house for profiles though. Cover the major 
bases themselves
and then solicit profile contributions for more marginal papers.  Also 
for this particular
"product" we're not talking about any arbitrary ink combo - just MIS's 
improved B&W
(+color) bundled ink set + QTR "product."

> Carving out a niche in this case is digging yourself into a hole: it
> doesn't answer the recognition/legitimacy issue in the broader art
> world, and as Epson gains market share, companies like MIS will
> lose, and become progressively less able to support the R&D
> neccessary to keep up. There is of course the wild card factor: some
> enterprising individual in Japan might sell the ink formula to a
> Chinsese ink maker, but even if we have the exact same inks under a
> different name convincing the art public they are just as good will
> still require hard numbers, preferrably generated by Wilhelm.
>
> Steve Karafyllakis
>

This legitimacy issue is interesting to me. New to me, I guess.  When I 
decided I wanted to
print digital B&W, I surfed around. PN, Google, whatever.  My first 
impressions were that
Epson printers were "the ones to get" and then for "real" B&W you had to 
buy inks from
Cone or MIS or whatever.  In other words, in my mind, the 3rd party B&W 
vendors held
the high ground for B&W printing. And preferably an expensive RIP.  In 
other words,
Epson supplied the printer and other companies supplied the rest of the 
solution to make
the printer come alive.

Just marketing phenomenology from a newbie. But I had no idea that the 
"art market"
considered Epson inks special.   I don't doubt it (don't really know), 
but in fact, for B&W,
I'm still under the perhaps false impression that a carbon ink set 
creates prints with
significantly greater longevity than Epson's UC's.  True or not, again 
just some "marketing
mindshare" phenomenology.

So what's the big deal with getting tests from Wilhelm?  Cost or the 
having the goods?

Also, I would think (perhaps incorrectly) that apart from the fine art 
gallery oriented
market, there's a much, much larger hobbyist amateur market for a 
"superior and cheaper
B&W solution."  These folks would welcome a cheaper set of inks, the 
dual B&W/color
oriented solution, and the opportunity to use a wide variety of papers 
"out of the box."

I imagine the fine art crowd are the folks already "rolling their own" 
and would most
likely continue to do so.

Scott

Clayton -

I found your comments interesting and they gave me a
"camp" to identify with.  I am a recent convert (at
east in part) to black and white, having spent years
with Cibachrome etc and recent years with Epson color
prints on Luster paper.  I therefore fall into at
least the semi-gloss camp - specifically the Premium
Luster camp and can't relate to matte finishes.  But
then, when I use to paint - eons ago - I used oils and
couldn't relate to water colors.  I still can't.

I don't know if that excludes me from anything "fine
art."  Since I know Ansel Adams' work more via some
exquisite book reproductions, which were on rather
glossy paper, I don't think of his work as being on
matte paper.  I think of it as having the jet black
blacks that I love and the stark vibrancy of what I
liked about Cibachrome.  I can now get way better
color prints with Photoshop and Epson than I could
with Cibachrome, and am hoping I can get "Ansel Adams"
prints using a digital approach.  I realize this is
all rather arrogant, but one can dream.

Peter
 


--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

I think ultimately it will depend on the papers. 
Follow my logic
here: I have seen how over the past couple of years as
more and more
people have gotten interested in BW digi printing,
many new names have
appeared in the forum, and it seems to be no longer
primarily fine art
types.  Forum members now seem to fall into two broad
camps, those who
are fine art oriented and prefer matte papers with MK,
and those who
seem happy with the glossy type papers and PK,
especially because of
the greater Dmax.  I can't tell for sure, but I get
the impression
that these glossy users are the same kinds of
photographers that used
RC paper for darkroom prints, which is a very large
market segment and
probably what Epson is aiming at.  Right now the fine
art matte users
seem to be holding on to what they've been doing, and
probably will
for some time.  

However, I think if someone invents a paper, cotton or
otherwise, that
truly looks and feels like ADFBG, and is truly
archival, and truly
allows a range of tones using truly archival Epson
inks, then the fine
art matte/MK folks might switch en masse and 3p ink
folks could be in
trouble.  Certainly the 3p ink folks must be watching
developments
very closely.

But in reality, there probably will always be many
good paper choices
and 3p ink folks will always be figuring ways to go
one step better,
so I think there will always be a 3p ink and paper
market of some
sort.  But it seems clear to me that the digi BW
market is more and
more becoming mainstream and is taking on the
two-sided coin aspect
that existed in the film/silver market - RC vs Fiber
orientation.  And
I think it is this orientation, the paper, that will
be a major
driving force that will affect the ink market.  I
think the ink will
follow the paper, but how this will all play out is
anyone's guess...

These ruminations are just impressions I have from
long term forum
reading and watching industry trends.  I'll be
interested to hear
others' thoughts. 

I am currently revising my "Great Paper Chase"
article, testing some
new papers, and have been on the phone with some paper
vendors - I
have some interesting observations that make me think
the cotton matte
papers will keep up, but will post them in a separate
thread.


Regards,
Clayton


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Why is matte paper associated with "fine art?" Not a rhetorical
question. I really don't understand the nature of this association.

(BTW, I use matte papers mostly and like 'em just fine.)

Scott

Peter Johngren wrote:

>
> Clayton -
>
> I found your comments interesting and they gave me a
> "camp" to identify with. I am a recent convert (at
> east in part) to black and white, having spent years
> with Cibachrome etc and recent years with Epson color
> prints on Luster paper. I therefore fall into at
> least the semi-gloss camp - specifically the Premium
> Luster camp and can't relate to matte finishes. But
> then, when I use to paint - eons ago - I used oils and
> couldn't relate to water colors. I still can't.
>
> I don't know if that excludes me from anything "fine
> art." Since I know Ansel Adams' work more via some
> exquisite book reproductions, which were on rather
> glossy paper, I don't think of his work as being on
> matte paper. I think of it as having the jet black
> blacks that I love and the stark vibrancy of what I
> liked about Cibachrome. I can now get way better
> color prints with Photoshop and Epson than I could
> with Cibachrome, and am hoping I can get "Ansel Adams"
> prints using a digital approach. I realize this is
> all rather arrogant, but one can dream.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> --- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
>
> I think ultimately it will depend on the papers.
> Follow my logic
> here: I have seen how over the past couple of years as
> more and more
> people have gotten interested in BW digi printing,
> many new names have
> appeared in the forum, and it seems to be no longer
> primarily fine art
> types. Forum members now seem to fall into two broad
> camps, those who
> are fine art oriented and prefer matte papers with MK,
> and those who
> seem happy with the glossy type papers and PK,
> especially because of
> the greater Dmax. I can't tell for sure, but I get
> the impression
> that these glossy users are the same kinds of
> photographers that used
> RC paper for darkroom prints, which is a very large
> market segment and
> probably what Epson is aiming at. Right now the fine
> art matte users
> seem to be holding on to what they've been doing, and
> probably will
> for some time.
>
> However, I think if someone invents a paper, cotton or
> otherwise, that
> truly looks and feels like ADFBG, and is truly
> archival, and truly
> allows a range of tones using truly archival Epson
> inks, then the fine
> art matte/MK folks might switch en masse and 3p ink
> folks could be in
> trouble. Certainly the 3p ink folks must be watching
> developments
> very closely.
>
> But in reality, there probably will always be many
> good paper choices
> and 3p ink folks will always be figuring ways to go
> one step better,
> so I think there will always be a 3p ink and paper
> market of some
> sort. But it seems clear to me that the digi BW
> market is more and
> more becoming mainstream and is taking on the
> two-sided coin aspect
> that existed in the film/silver market - RC vs Fiber
> orientation. And
> I think it is this orientation, the paper, that will
> be a major
> driving force that will affect the ink market. I
> think the ink will
> follow the paper, but how this will all play out is
> anyone's guess...
>
> These ruminations are just impressions I have from
> long term forum
> reading and watching industry trends. I'll be
> interested to hear
> others' thoughts.
>
> I am currently revising my "Great Paper Chase"
> article, testing some
> new papers, and have been on the phone with some paper
> vendors - I
> have some interesting observations that make me think
> the cotton matte
> papers will keep up, but will post them in a separate
> thread.
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

It is good to have more alternatives. The free competition will lead to some
better solutions. In this sense obsolete is probably a great thing.

Soon HP will come out another and better solution for B&W, and Canon could
be in the race too.

If Epson K3 is better and easier than MIS right now, for its own survival
MIS has to come out a better solution or it will be the history.

One thing MIS can do is to come out a new set of inks and cartridges for
Epson K3 printers. Better and cheaper. Refillable cartridges. CFS.

How about 8 or 9 B&W inks with different shades?  Make one ink working on
both Matt and Glossy paper?

Many many things can be improved or invented in this field.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Jasutis
  Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:51 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Will we be obsolete?


  I was reading a forum on the R2400. Someone was speculating that with
  the new imporved B&W available on that printer, that third party inks
  would soon become obsolete. My knee jerk reaction was that this is a
  real possibility. Then I thought further. Even if Epson optomizes the
  system to make really great prints on their paper, I don't see them
  ever fine tuning it to all the different fine art papers out there,
  and since there will more than likely always be a demand for the
  ability to use a variety of papers, we will prbably need the third
  party inks to go with them.





  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin 
<scott@a...> wrote:
> Why is matte paper associated with "fine art?" Not a rhetorical
> question. I really don't understand the nature of this association.
> 
> (BTW, I use matte papers mostly and like 'em just fine.)
> 
> Scott
> 
I'm not 100% sure, but I think a lot of it may have to do with people 
using hand coated paper to make non silver prints. These were usually 
some form of water color paper with a photographic coating applied, 
and would traditionally have a matte finish.

I find it funny to look back on my darkroom days, and remember hearing 
the same debates about Dmax between people who liked the glossy paper 
and those who like matte, that we are hearing in the inkjet world 
today.

>Peter: Since I know Ansel Adams' work more via some
>exquisite book reproductions, which were on rather
>glossy paper, I don't think of his work as being on
>matte paper.  I think of it as having the jet black
>blacks that I love 

>Scott :Why is matte paper associated with "fine art?" Not a
>rhetorical question. I really don't understand the nature of 
>this association.

There is some confusion here because of the term "glossy", plus modern
paper technology is blurring the distinction.  In the silver world the
opposing terms were "RC" and "Fiber", with fiber papers being
considered archival and RC papers not archival.  Fiber papers had
glossy and other surfaces to choose from.  The main distinction was
archivalness, but there was also a clear difference in appearance. 
The glossiest fiber papers were not nearly as shiny and plasticky
looking as RC.  The phrase that is being used today for that paper is
"Air Dried Fiber Based Glossy", or ADFBG.  The air dried part is to
distinguish from ferrotyped prints (an ultra shiny machine drying
technique).  These were the most popular papers used by the fine art
folks, AA and all the rest.

In the Digi world the distinction has still been between archivalness,
but the archival papers were all cotton with matte surfaces, and the
non archival papers were the glossy ones, the equivalents of silver's
RC papers.  So in this world "glossy" has meant "bad" and "matte" has
meant "good".  Hence, Fine Art became associated with matte paper.  In
the silver world "glossy" didn't necessarily mean "bad".

However, some of the new "glossy" papers, and this includes the
semi-gloss/luster whatever papers, anything not matte, are testing out
to be archival (assuming good inks).  But they still look too shiny
and plasticky for most fine art folks who are used to the ADFBG look,
 and they prefer matte (which can resemble platinum print finishes,
not a bad thing).  With ink on paper prints, the archivalness is a
different equation than with emulsion prints, so everything's changing.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion, I was taking these things for
granted.  I think we all need to be more thoughtful in how we use
these terms.  There are more and more folks making the leap from
silver to digi BW and they often aren't familiar with the jargon.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Habit like most things I suppose; painters didn't use "glossy" paper   :)

and now that I've switched from darkroom, I prefer matte, though I got here by kicking 
and screaming.

In the darkroom I found matte papers (Kodak Velvet) to be DULL; would NEVER use it.

On my Epson, the blacks on matte are wonderful (I do almost entirely B&W).

Scott2

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin <scott@a...> 
wrote:

> Why is matte paper associated with "fine art?" Not a rhetorical
> question. I really don't understand the nature of this association.
> 
> (BTW, I use matte papers mostly and like 'em just fine.)
> 
> Scott
> 
> Peter Johngren wrote:
> 
> >
>

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>


> Forum members now seem to fall into two broad camps, those who
> are fine art oriented and prefer matte papers with MK, and those who
> seem happy with the glossy type papers and PK, especially because of
> the greater Dmax.


On what basis are you suggesting that "fine art" is matte paper?  I am sorry
but that is a completely absurd proposition.  A casual glance at the colour
photography community - digital or traditional - proves you wrong.

Exactly.  

You CAN survive through mimicking if you can compete on price but you do
need to provide some sort of certification, something which gives the buyer
confidence in the quality of the product you sell.  Unfortunately with
issues such as archival quality, there is no substitute for independent,
recognised testing.  And btw I would not necessarily be leaning too hard
towards Wilhelm - I hear that their tests leave a lot to be desired but in
the absence of a credible alternative they have become a standard which
people look to.

Even if companies like MIS endeavour to innovate more and get out ahead of
the likes of Epson (they have done a good job in the niche B&W field by
actually supplying something that to date Epson has not supplied) they will
need to provide certification.  Paul's tests have filled the gap well but if
MIS is serious they need to think seriously about stumping up for
independent tests and factoring such costs into their pricing.  With the K3
inks Epson have likely taken a big bite out of MIS' innovative product set.
I'd like to see them not just mimic but get back out in front again.  But
again independent certification will be a key factor to broad success.  In
addition, they need to take greater control over the quality of critical
ancillary items also - ink cartridges that match the quality of the OEM
product.  There's no point having good ink if you have to have people put it
in a crap delivery mechanism.

There are other ink manufacturers out there close to coming to market with
real innovation - new ink formulae based on research rather than mimicry. If
what I have been told about these inks and the tests conducted on them is
true they will blow our minds. But again independent certification of the
expected archival quality of their products will be key to establishing
confidence with potential customers.  These guys will get one shot at the
big time - one rarely gets two chances.  They need to ensure that when they
launch everything is top notch - from the ink, to the certification
confidence they provide potential customers to the cartridges they supply
the ink in.

The game just got a little tougher for MIS.  When the going gets tough....

> From: Pacific New Media <panmedia@...>


> 
> If Epson K3 is better and easier than MIS right now, for its own survival
> MIS has to come out a better solution or it will be the history.
> 
> One thing MIS can do is to come out a new set of inks and cartridges for
> Epson K3 printers. Better and cheaper. Refillable cartridges. CFS.
> 
> How about 8 or 9 B&W inks with different shades?  Make one ink working on
> both Matt and Glossy paper?
> 
> Many many things can be improved or invented in this field.

Clayton  -
 
Before there was "RC" the debate over glossy (or ferrotyped) vs. matt was ongoing.  So, it's not the advent of "RC" papers that brought this about.
 
Tom Baker

Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
>Peter: Since I know Ansel Adams' work more via some
>exquisite book reproductions, which were on rather
>glossy paper, I don't think of his work as being on
>matte paper. I think of it as having the jet black
>blacks that I love 

>Scott :Why is matte paper associated with "fine art?" Not a
>rhetorical question. I really don't understand the nature of 
>this association.

There is some confusion here because of the term "glossy", plus modern
paper technology is blurring the distinction. In the silver world the
opposing terms were "RC" and "Fiber", with fiber papers being
considered archival and RC papers not archival. Fiber papers had
glossy and other surfaces to choose from. The main distinction was
archivalness, but there was also a clear difference in appearance. 
The glossiest fiber papers were not nearly as shiny and plasticky
looking as RC. The phrase that is being used today for that paper is
"Air Dried Fiber Based Glossy", or ADFBG. The air dried part is to
distinguish from ferrotyped prints (an ultra shiny machine drying
technique). These were the most popular papers used by the fine art
folks, AA and all the rest.

In the Digi world the distinction has still been between archivalness,
but the archival papers were all cotton with matte surfaces, and the
non archival papers were the glossy ones, the equivalents of silver's
RC papers. So in this world "glossy" has meant "bad" and "matte" has
meant "good". Hence, Fine Art became associated with matte paper. In
the silver world "glossy" didn't necessarily mean "bad".

However, some of the new "glossy" papers, and this includes the
semi-gloss/luster whatever papers, anything not matte, are testing out
to be archival (assuming good inks). But they still look too shiny
and plasticky for most fine art folks who are used to the ADFBG look,
and they prefer matte (which can resemble platinum print finishes,
not a bad thing). With ink on paper prints, the archivalness is a
different equation than with emulsion prints, so everything's changing.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion, I was taking these things for
granted. I think we all need to be more thoughtful in how we use
these terms. There are more and more folks making the leap from
silver to digi BW and they often aren't familiar with the jargon.

Regards,
Clayton


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





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

It's worth pointing out that when one sits down to think about advancing the
inkjet paper/ink medium, the two are inextricably tied together.  The paper
is the recipient - the intended destination of the ink.  Guys like Epson
work with paper "engineers" all the time designing papers that they can
brand which are intended specifically for their ink.  That's not to say that
such papers won't accept other ink but one will get optimal results if the
two are designed together.  This goes way beyond "coatings".  One might
actually (and one does) infuse chemicals into the paper during the
manufacturing process, into the actual substrate as it is made, that provide
a better base for receiving an ink specially designed for them.

The easy yardage has already been made.  The last 20 are going to be tough
and require real innovative research.  I also hope that such real research
is well protected from mimicry.  If not, the incentive to invent will be
demolished and we will all be the worse for it.  Support those that bring
true innovation to the table not those that simply mimic and destroy the
incentive to innovate.

Then there are those of us who like both. Makes for a varied look. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete - it's the papers





  > From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>


  > Forum members now seem to fall into two broad camps, those who
  > are fine art oriented and prefer matte papers with MK, and those who
  > seem happy with the glossy type papers and PK, especially because of
  > the greater Dmax.


  On what basis are you suggesting that "fine art" is matte paper?  I am sorry
  but that is a completely absurd proposition.  A casual glance at the colour
  photography community - digital or traditional - proves you wrong.






  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott 
McLoughlin <scott@a...> wrote:
> Comments below.
> 
> Steven Karafyllakis wrote:
> 
> > It's not that hard; I've had Eboni in my 7600 for a year, and 
just
> > recently replaced the MIS LK with my own custom neutral LK. I 
keep
> > MIS color Ultraclones in the rest of the slots for color work. 
I've
> > been using MonacoEZcolor to re-profile for each change, and while
> > there are better (and more expensive) profiling suites available,
> > Monaco works well enough most of the time. The package from MIS
> > you're suggesting is a good idea, but people would still need to 
do
> > custom curves and profiles for non-supported papers. And there 
are
> > many new papers becoming available, you can't reasonably expect a
> > small company like MIS to keep up with them all.
> 
> 
> MIS could provide a clearing house for profiles though. Cover the 
major 
> bases themselves
> and then solicit profile contributions for more marginal papers.  
Also 
> for this particular
> "product" we're not talking about any arbitrary ink combo - just 
MIS's 
> improved B&W
> (+color) bundled ink set + QTR "product."

This could certainly work, I would think. Mediastreet is doing 
something like this with QTR and their G4 inks. Too bad the G4 
are 'hybrids' with some dye in them, and therefore shorter lifespan. 
But it does provide incentive and a new model for MIS to think about.
> 
> > Carving out a niche in this case is digging yourself into a 
hole: it
> > doesn't answer the recognition/legitimacy issue in the broader 
art
> > world, and as Epson gains market share, companies like MIS will
> > lose, and become progressively less able to support the R&D
> > neccessary to keep up. There is of course the wild card factor: 
some
> > enterprising individual in Japan might sell the ink formula to a
> > Chinsese ink maker, but even if we have the exact same inks 
under a
> > different name convincing the art public they are just as good 
will
> > still require hard numbers, preferrably generated by Wilhelm.
> >
> > Steve Karafyllakis
> >
> 
> This legitimacy issue is interesting to me. New to me, I guess.  
When I 
> decided I wanted to
> print digital B&W, I surfed around. PN, Google, whatever.  My 
first 
> impressions were that
> Epson printers were "the ones to get" and then for "real" B&W you 
had to 
> buy inks from
> Cone or MIS or whatever.  In other words, in my mind, the 3rd 
party B&W 
> vendors held
> the high ground for B&W printing. And preferably an expensive 
RIP.  In 
> other words,
> Epson supplied the printer and other companies supplied the rest 
of the 
> solution to make
> the printer come alive.
> 

This has been true up till now. But now that Epson has an improved 
set of inks that are chemically sophisticated enough that third 
party vendors can't copy them easily, it raises the stakes. Now that 
Epson is willing to guarrantee longevity (assuming you follow their 
procedures ) and issue a certificate of guarantee, and is backing 
that with a world-wide PR campaign, it could very well give them the 
high ground at least at the upper end of the market for a long time 
to come. I would hate to find I'm having trouble getting inkjets in 
galleries just at the time they're becoming acceptable, say a year 
or two down the road. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but a little 
planning ahead never hurt.


> Just marketing phenomenology from a newbie. But I had no idea that 
the 
> "art market"
> considered Epson inks special.   > 

Again not until now: if the K3 inks hold up to the hype and resist 
duplication, we may need to convince potential buyers that what we 
are using is just as good, at least for B&W

> So what's the big deal with getting tests from Wilhelm?  Cost or 
the 
> having the goods?

MIS has the goods- Paul Roark's tests indicate their inks are as 
good or better than the CURRENT UC inks. The problem seems to be 
cost.
> 
> Also, I would think (perhaps incorrectly) that apart from the fine 
art 
> gallery oriented
> market, there's a much, much larger hobbyist amateur market for a 
> "superior and cheaper
> B&W solution."  These folks would welcome a cheaper set of inks, 
the 
> dual B&W/color
> oriented solution, and the opportunity to use a wide variety of 
papers 
> "out of the box."

Yes, there'll always be that niche, but it's a relatively tiny piece 
of the inkjet pie; point is we can't afford to let it get smaller.
> 
> I imagine the fine art crowd are the folks already "rolling their 
own" 
> and would most
> likely continue to do so.

I think it's the professional photogs and printer/service bureau 
segment that are even more likely to "roll their own" profiles. They 
need the accuracy and are making some money from it, they can afford 
it. They are also most likely to buy a new K3 printer, keep Epson 
inks in it, and ditch the uncertainty of 3rd party inks now that 
they can get both B&W and excellent color from one machine.


Steve Karafyllakis

Thanks for this, Clayton. As one of the jargon-challenged I really
appreciate your explanation.

Jim Kish

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:33:43 -0000

From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
Subject: Re: Will we be obsolete - it's the papers

>Peter: Since I know Ansel Adams' work more via some
>exquisite book reproductions, which were on rather
>glossy paper, I don't think of his work as being on
>matte paper.  I think of it as having the jet black
>blacks that I love

>Scott :Why is matte paper associated with "fine art?" Not a
>rhetorical question. I really don't understand the nature of
>this association.

There is some confusion here because of the term "glossy", plus modern
paper technology is blurring the distinction.  In the silver world the
opposing terms were "RC" and "Fiber", with fiber papers being
considered archival and RC papers not archival.  Fiber papers had
glossy and other surfaces to choose from.  The main distinction was
archivalness, but there was also a clear difference in appearance.
The glossiest fiber papers were not nearly as shiny and plasticky
looking as RC.  The phrase that is being used today for that paper is
"Air Dried Fiber Based Glossy", or ADFBG.  The air dried part is to
distinguish from ferrotyped prints (an ultra shiny machine drying
technique).  These were the most popular papers used by the fine art
folks, AA and all the rest.

In the Digi world the distinction has still been between archivalness,
but the archival papers were all cotton with matte surfaces, and the
non archival papers were the glossy ones, the equivalents of silver's
RC papers.  So in this world "glossy" has meant "bad" and "matte" has
meant "good".  Hence, Fine Art became associated with matte paper.  In
the silver world "glossy" didn't necessarily mean "bad".

However, some of the new "glossy" papers, and this includes the
semi-gloss/luster whatever papers, anything not matte, are testing out
to be archival (assuming good inks).  But they still look too shiny
and plasticky for most fine art folks who are used to the ADFBG look,
 and they prefer matte (which can resemble platinum print finishes,
not a bad thing).  With ink on paper prints, the archivalness is a
different equation than with emulsion prints, so everything's changing.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion, I was taking these things for
granted.  I think we all need to be more thoughtful in how we use
these terms.  There are more and more folks making the leap from
silver to digi BW and they often aren't familiar with the jargon.

Regards,
Clayton


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

There is some part of the market that will be satisfied with these
canned solutions, some of which were not available directly from the
multinational as a package deal in the past. However, Epson has been,
and still is, a follower interested primarily in the largest segment
of the market.
Inks, papers, drivers, etc., Epson continues to try to play catch up,
either by rebranding or implementing ideas already out of date in the
bleeding edge world.
Witness- they finally decided more than 2 blacks are needed (they only
decided more than one was needed about 2 years ago) and we see people
evolving to 6 and 7 mono partitioned ink solutions now, not even
looking back over their shoulder at where Epson may be at. That's just
one example.
The new printers will probably make a lot of people happy, so some
market will move away I guess, and Ultrachromes in general have
probably hampered the 3rd party color ink world quite a bit.
Even with one of these new printers, I'm sure QTR and IJC will move
them into an area of quality the Epson driver can't match, given
knowledgeable setup.
The small innovators will always be ahead of the dinosaurs. But we are
married to Epson as well, so more power to them if they innovate.
Their efforts to create impressions in the marketplace and claim
dominance over legitimate longevity concerns is of greater concern in
my opinion. I wish they were putting as much effort into R&D as they
are spin.
They need the 3rd party guys for ideas more than they will admit,
can't mow them all down.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Jasutis"
<jimj1946@y...> wrote:

> I was reading a forum on the R2400. Someone was speculating that with 
> the new imporved B&W available on that printer, that third party inks 
> would soon become obsolete. My knee jerk reaction was that this is a 
> real possibility. Then I thought further. Even if Epson optomizes the 
> system to make really great prints on their paper, I don't see them 
> ever fine tuning it to all the different fine art papers out there, 
> and since there will more than likely always be a demand for the 
> ability to use a variety of papers, we will prbably need the third 
> party inks to go with them.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> There is some part of the market that will be satisfied with these
> canned solutions, some of which were not available directly from the
> multinational as a package deal in the past. However, Epson has 
been,
> and still is, a follower interested primarily in the largest segment
> of the market.
> Inks, papers, drivers, etc., Epson continues to try to play catch 
up,
> either by rebranding or implementing ideas already out of date in 
the
> bleeding edge world.
> Witness- they finally decided more than 2 blacks are needed (they 
only
> decided more than one was needed about 2 years ago) and we see 
people
> evolving to 6 and 7 mono partitioned ink solutions now, not even
> looking back over their shoulder at where Epson may be at. That's 
just
> one example.

I don't think the 3 blacks was specifically for black and white 
printing. I think it was to make smoother tonal transitions with the 
color work. And also it could provide a slightly better gamut because 
using black ink to replace CMY means you can get more ink onto the 
paper (GCR).


> The new printers will probably make a lot of people happy, so some
> market will move away I guess, and Ultrachromes in general have
> probably hampered the 3rd party color ink world quite a bit.

I don't know about that. Since the Ultrachrome inks have come to 
pass, many more manufacturers have made pigment inks for these 
printers. Way back when, there were only a couple places to get 
pigment inks, and then when the UC inks came out, several others 
joined the game. Now you have third parties making several different 
versions of ink sets, for old and new printers. Also made Canon take 
notice and start to think.


> Even with one of these new printers, I'm sure QTR and IJC will move
> them into an area of quality the Epson driver can't match, given
> knowledgeable setup.

Several other choices too like StudioPrint, Onyx RIPs, Evolution RIP. 
Yes those are much more money, but offer greater fexibility for other 
tasks. For B/W only it's going to be hard to beat the price for 
performance of QTR and Bowhaus RIP.

> The small innovators will always be ahead of the dinosaurs. But we 
are
> married to Epson as well, so more power to them if they innovate.

Canon is making it's way slowly, so we may not always be tied to 
Epson.


> Their efforts to create impressions in the marketplace and claim
> dominance over legitimate longevity concerns is of greater concern 
in
> my opinion. I wish they were putting as much effort into R&D as they
> are spin.
> They need the 3rd party guys for ideas more than they will admit,
> can't mow them all down.
> Tyler
> 
> 

Can't agree more on that last point!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tyler
> Boley
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:26 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete?
> 
> Inks, papers, drivers, etc., Epson continues to try to play catch up,
> either by rebranding or implementing ideas already out of date in the
> bleeding edge world.

The point is that Epson will still be around in 10 years while most of the
so called bleeding edge players will not.

In addition, most of these so called "bleeding edge" organisations are quite
small and often their success is dependent on the ideas and drive of a
single individual.

Now then, if you are looking for longevity for your business, who would you
back? give me the big company technology follower every time and I'll use
the "blee

sding edge" brigade when it suits me.


---
[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. ]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" <dfaprinting@y...> 
wrote:
...
> I don't think the 3 blacks was specifically for black and white 
> printing. I think it was to make smoother tonal transitions with the 
> color work...

My understanding is that it was, in fact, primarily to improve B&W. But Epson is such an 
opaque company I'm not sure anyone knows for sure.

>... And also it could provide a slightly better gamut because 
> using black ink to replace CMY means you can get more ink onto the 
> paper (GCR).

Up in the tonal areas where a lighter K will be introduced for GCR, total ink is not high, or 
a problem. I doubt this alone will effect gamut.

> 
> 
> > The new printers will probably make a lot of people happy, so some
> > market will move away I guess, and Ultrachromes in general have
> > probably hampered the 3rd party color ink world quite a bit.
> 
> I don't know about that. Since the Ultrachrome inks have come to 
> pass, many more manufacturers have made pigment inks for these 
> printers.

Whether they are pigment or not, I see much less discussion elsewhere about 3rd party 
color inks in use. I'm a good example. I've used Lysonic, Fotonic, Indelible, Generations, 
MIS... you name it over the years. Any more, I just don't bother, though I do wish 
something better would come along.

It was Jobs, or someone else big and successful, that said he worries more about some 
crazy in a garage coming up with the next big one, than his huge dinosaur competition 
across the street.
The results I love now, that I find personally rewarding, are because of the crazies, I'm all 
for them.
Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:

>
>It was Jobs, or someone else big and successful, that said he worries more about some 
>crazy in a garage coming up with the next big one, than his huge dinosaur competition 
>across the street.
>  
>
Probably Jobs, it can not have been Gates. He doesn't worry about some 
crazy in a garage like Jobs who should take away the 90% of the market 
Windows has :-)  Not on Intel hardware either.

My sympathy is with the crazy one but my decisions for buying are not 
based on that alone.

Ernst

It's interesting. Just when Epson thought they had it all sewed up, here come 
Cannon. Now they are a big daddy with a big footprint.

John

It's not likely that Epson ever "thought" it had anything "all sewed
up." :-)

Follow it back to Sekei Mamiya and WWII (Seiko, Mamiya, Epson etc): 
always a leader in photography, like Canon. In fact Mamiya's 22MP SLR
is about to change the landscape for everybody.

I happen to shoot Canon F1s ... just today I bought a Canon P...I do 
respect Canon, but Epson's got a decade's lead in printers, a huge
installed base of ancient machines that do beautiful work two
generations later (eg 1280)...somehow I doubt the new models are the
last we'll hear from them... 

:-)  :-)  :-)



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> It's interesting. Just when Epson thought they had it all sewed up,
here come 

> Cannon. Now they are a big daddy with a big footprint.
> 
> John

In what way might we expect the new Mamiya 22MP digital camera to 
change the landscape for everybody?

And I must have missed something about Canon. They are certainly not 
new to the printer business. Have they recently announced something of 
interest to photographers?

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:

> Follow it back to Sekei Mamiya and WWII (Seiko, Mamiya, Epson etc): 
> always a leader in photography, like Canon. In fact Mamiya's 22MP SLR
> is about to change the landscape for everybody.
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> tynmansystems
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:42 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete?
> 
> In what way might we expect the new Mamiya 22MP digital camera to
> change the landscape for everybody?
> 
> And I must have missed something about Canon. They are certainly not
> new to the printer business. Have they recently announced something of
> interest to photographers?

Certainly have. Go to their site and have a shufty.

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. ]

Steve,

I think you've missed out one very important point here. It isn't just a 
matter of producing an ink and finding a matching paper; you have to 
research and design the appropriate software to put that ink on/in the paper 
to best advantage. MIS don't seem to do that; they seem to rely on others 
such as Paul and Roy to do the serious work for them. Epson works with ink 
'engineers', paper 'engineers', and software 'engineers', so that all three 
are matched.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>


It's worth pointing out that when one sits down to think about advancing the
inkjet paper/ink medium, the two are inextricably tied together.  The paper
is the recipient - the intended destination of the ink.  Guys like Epson
work with paper "engineers" all the time designing papers that they can
brand which are intended specifically for their ink.

John,

HP are 'big daddy' in printers. Way ahead of the rest. Epson come in about 
fourth or fifth I think.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@...>


It's interesting. Just when Epson thought they had it all sewed up, here 
come
Cannon. Now they are a big daddy with a big footprint.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@f...> wrote:
> Epson works with ink 
> 'engineers', paper 'engineers', and software 'engineers', so that 
all three 
> are matched.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 


You forgot the hardware engineers in there. All the third parties 
play catch up after the manufacturer's team finishes and releases the 
new products.

The only instance that I would possibly point to where the above 
wasn't true was Epson and their first pigment inks. Third parties had 
these first to market (for Epson printers), as well as other printer 
manufacturers (Encad's GO inks).

Bob,

Hp is the big daddy of money made on printers, we belive you. But they are 
the little baby of producing a machine for fine art applications that will use 
anything but swellable hp media, right? Tonight I'm printing carbon black and 
white on the outstanding Hahnemuhle William Turner Rag. Hp wouldn't help 
me there, would they?. But ,sure they own the advertising banner market, 
trade show displays, and Kinkos throghout the world. That just ain't me. But, I 
haven't given  up on em, or Cannon either. The next two years will be 
interesting. 

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" <
bob@f...> wrote:

> John,
> 
> HP are 'big daddy' in printers. Way ahead of the rest. Epson come in about 
> fourth or fifth I think.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...>
> 
> 
> It's interesting. Just when Epson thought they had it all sewed up, here 
> come
> Cannon. Now they are a big daddy with a big footprint.

This will be a bit long, but I find it very interesting-

Last week there was a digital "festival" sponsored by our local pro
Epson dealer. He does a very good job hosting each year and brings in
various stars to give presentations, etc.. We've had Bruce Fraser and
others, this year Greg Gorman was the major star, also John Panozzo
from Colorbyte (ImagePrint), Epson reps, Onyx reps, Chromix, the usual
suspects.
For the first time there was a print competition. Any antendee could
enter, and the winners were chosen by a completely open vote by all.
There was mostly color of course, everything from large fine art to
reproduction on canvas, a variety of surfaces and subject matter. Also
some B&W. Even a UC over platinum print. Quality of work was from
fairly accomplished amateur to internationally known fine artists.

And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party fine
art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
print got three times more votes than any other print entered.

I find this amazing. The point, to me, is this- it's not about the
numbers, it's not about who has the power to squash smaller companies,
and not about presuppositions about technical superiority or what
photographs are "supposed" to look like.
Some of these processes have come to fruition, some of them, in the
right hands with the right images, can make beautiful art.

Obviously beautiful art. Not, sort of, or maybe, or
if-you-look-at-it-right...
But to the majority there by a huge margin, over color, over blacker
blacks, relatively unsophisticated eyes and critical eyes together. I
think we forget how far we have come.

"We" may get pushed out, may become marginalized, or evolve into
something else, but are significant in a larger sense. Some things are
just about the art, you know? Thank goodness for the innovators. Keep
pushing it, and support your 3rd party suppliers.
The votes are in, they are making it happen.
Tyler

Tyler wrote: "The votes are in, they are making it happen."

Tyler,
Are you trying to say that man does not live by D-Max alone?  ;-)

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> 
> And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party 
fine
> art "matte" paper.

Would have liked to heard Epson's thoughts about this, They should be 
happy since things like this do help sell more "stuff" to the people 
that are less commited to being different from the norm.

> and support your 3rd party suppliers.

I have for more than 6 years, and plan to continue until I can no 
longer get those materials. The last time I put OEM ink in a printer 
was just after buying one, and then just because the machine wasn't 
for me and the inks were included in the box. But as we all know, 
this is a two edged blade and can cut both ways if enough people 
switch. No more cheap hardware. Thankfully there are far more people 
buying OEM than buying third party, so this shouldn't be a huge 
problem in the near future.

all right kids sit down and shut up, the teach is back <G>
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:

> Tyler wrote: "The votes are in, they are making it happen."
> 
> Tyler,
> Are you trying to say that man does not live by D-Max alone?  ;-)
> 
> Dan

On 27-Jun-05, at 4:43 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

>
>
> And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party fine
> art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
> individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
> apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
> process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
> print got three times more votes than any other print entered.

hey teach.. you forgot to say who won... don't be shy... :)))))

Carolyn

On 27-Jun-05, at 5:19 PM, Danny Culbertson wrote:

> Tyler wrote: "The votes are in, they are making it happen."
>
> Tyler,
> Are you trying to say that man does not live by D-Max alone?  ;-)

shhhhh..... I think that's a secret society thing.

Carolyn

"Tyler Boley" wrote:

> And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party fine
> art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
> individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
> apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
> process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
> print got three times more votes than any other print entered.

So Tyler...are you going to tell us just whom the winner was? I have a good guess!

I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Tyler at his Seattle studio a few weeks ago. And 
since my visit with Tyler there has not been a day that doesn't go by that I don't think 
about the quality of his prints and images.

First and foremost Tyler is a very accomplished photographer...he has many beautiful 
images hanging on his studio walls and tons more in stacks. Every image he pullout was 
just as powerful and beautiful as the next. I told Tyler he needs to get out there and sell 
his work but he mentioned he's not a big salesman guy. I should add Tyler as you know 
him here on the web is also the same person in real life - very generous with sharing his 
knowledge without being snobby or pretentious. Just a real good humble person.

I'm trying to get to my point about print quality...finally...

Also hanging on Tyler's studio walls were many clients' prints...all large prints some as 
wide as six plus feet. As with his personal prints, print quality was superb and there was 
not one print that I felt needed deeper blacks...not one...didn't even enter my mind! All 
images stood on there own without deeper blacks. What really made the prints - besides 
the images themselves - was the subtle details in the complete tonal range of the 
print...wish I could explain it better than that.

After seeing his prints I feel D-Max is really less of an issue for me, but I've been very 
happy with my own work so it didn't take that much convincing after seeing Tyler's prints.

> Tyler,
> Are you trying to say that man does not live by D-Max alone?  ;-)
> Dan

Dan,

Shouldn't you be posting at Adobe's Camera Raw forum? Good to see you back.

John V

Tyler,
 
>The point, to me, is this- it's not about the numbers...
>not about presuppositions about technical superiority or 
>what photographs are "supposed" to look like.  
>...processes...in the right hands with the right images, 
>can make beautiful art.
>Obviously beautiful art. Not, sort of, or maybe, or
>if-you-look-at-it-right...But to the majority there by a 
>huge margin, over color, over blacker blacks, relatively
>unsophisticated eyes and critical eyes together. 

Beautiful, thank you for reporting this.  The truth of this was
brought home to me very strongly just yesterday.  Last week I made a
portrait of our church priest in his study and it turned out really
well.  I decided to make some small prints on various papers and let
him select the one he likes best for the final print.  

Some weeks ago Steve Karafyllakis gave me some Arches paper (not
their ink jet paper but regular smooth watercolor paper, it has some
sizing in it but not inkjet coating), and I'd been waiting for the
right image to try it on and this portrait seemed like a good
candidate.  So I made five 4x5 prints, cold to very warm, using
Kayenta, Fiba, PR, Smooth Cotton (Innova) and the Arches.  As
expected, the Arches print was very warm, soft, grainier (all were
Eboni BO), and much lower dmax.  But it surprised me with a wonderful
subtle, long scale glowing beauty - it looks very much like an old
platinum print.

Yesterday I took them to church, and when I laid them out he instantly
said "Oh I like that one the best" and pointed to the Arches.  He
proceeded to look at the others carefully but didn't change his mind.
This surprised me and I decided to show them to other people and ask
them to pick the one they liked best.  I showed them to 22 people,
here's the result:

     Paper        Votes     Tone
-----------------------------------------
Smooth Cotton       9     Medium Warm
Arches              7     Very Warm
Fiba                3     Medium Warm
Photo Rag           2     Medium Warm
Kayenta             1     Cold

It's interesting that the one with the best dmax, PR, was in next to
last place.  Smooth Cotton is an interesting paper because the paper
color is warmer than PR and has an over all warmer look, but the ink
color (Eboni) is actually a tiny bit cooler than on PR.  It also has a
sort of 3D effect, subtle but noticeable.  Things like books on a
shelf in the background have a "presence" that's lacking in the
others, and several people made comments about it (also FWIW, no one
made any comments about the pics looking grainy or dotty or anything
related to them being BO - they received only oohs and aahs and
compliments, and these were 4x5s getting close up examination).

What's also interesting is the way they made their choices.  Everyone
who chose the Arches made instant decisions.  The moment they saw them
they liked it way better than the others.  Everyone who chose Smooth
Cotton (and most of the others) did so after careful deliberation. 
The one person who chose the cold tone Kayenta print also made an
instant decision.  Both the Arches and the Kayenta were the most
different in tone, warmer and colder, than the other three which were
similar.  I'm not sure what this means but it's interesting so I pass
it along FWIW.

The Arches print, by technical standards shared by many photographers,
would not be considered "good", yet is has a beauty that 1/3 of the
people responded to.  I'm going to explore this paper some more and
find out what it's limitations are.  I'm sure there are some images
that won't look good at all, but some that will.  I'm eager to try
some western landscapes with it.

Regards,
Clayton


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

--- > 

> > And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> > A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party 
fine
> > art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
> > individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
> > apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
> > process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
> > print got three times more votes than any other print entered.
> 
For those that have not been able to read between the lines, It was 
Tylers print that won! The combo was Tyler, Studio Print, Cone Inks, 
And a 9600& Hahnemuhle paper. Word is Epson(the host of the event)
wasn't too happy as they gaveaway a 47inch Highdef Epson LCD Tv. They 
probably thought one of the UltraChrome prints would be a sure winner. 
Whoops! At least Tyler was using an Epson printer. This is a sweet 
outstanding win! Way to go Tyler. 
Steve M.

On 27-Jun-05, at 8:54 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> The Arches print, by technical standards shared by many photographers,
> would not be considered "good", yet is has a beauty that 1/3 of the
> people responded to.  I'm going to explore this paper some more and
> find out what it's limitations are.  I'm sure there are some images
> that won't look good at all, but some that will.  I'm eager to try
> some western landscapes with it.

I print a lot of images on plain old arches watercolor paper, have  
for years.. black and white, tones, color... I love it.. I have a  
series of hand studies that I printed to arches, and then ironed bees  
wax into them. Sort of fear saying I use this paper on this list  
lately..  If someone wants the ultimate dmax, that's cool.. doesn't  
mean that it's the be all and end all for everyone's tastes or  
work... nor the definition of the 'proper' black and white print.

Tyler wrote "Some of these processes have come to fruition, some of  
them, in the
right hands with the right images, can make beautiful art."

.. perfect ..

Carolyn

>It was Tylers print that won! 

Way to go, Tyler, congratulations.  What a treat.


>Word is Epson(the host of the event) wasn't too happy...They 
>probably thought one of the UltraChrome prints would be a 
>sure winner

Maybe they will take notice as to what serious BW artists
need...perhaps this will eventually benefit us all in some way.
Sure would be interesting to know what they are thinking as a result
of this.


>they gaveaway a 47inch Highdef Epson LCD Tv

I bet Superbowl will look good on that...



Regards,
Clayton


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

> Dan,
> 
> Shouldn't you be posting at Adobe's Camera Raw forum? Good to see 
you back.
> 
> John V

Thanks John.  Seems like I accidentally left my day job to become 
gainfully unemployed (aka "retired") and find I have time to lob posts 
again. Glad there are still some folks I know around and abouts.

Dan

Hello Carolyn 

>I print a lot of images on plain old arches watercolor paper, 
>have for years.. black and white, tones, color... I love it.. 

Huh, whadya know...you are full of surprises.  But now that I think
about it, having seen some of your creative work, it's not surprising.


>..printed to arches, and then ironed bees wax into them. 

How did you do this, and can you describe the result?


>Sort of fear saying I use this paper on this list...

Well, you shouldn't have to fear that.  I wish you would post more
often because you have such a broad range of experience and your
contributions are always worthwhile.  Lots of people read this forum
and I'm sure many would benefit from what you have to share.  


As for Arches paper, this print is the closest thing to a platinum
look that I've made.  It is way beyond what I expected.  I have two
books containing what are supposed to be faithful reproductions of
platinum prints, by Stieglitz and Laura Gilpin (one of my favorite
photogs, BTW), and this print bears a strong resemblance to those.  It
would be nice if others would try it and report their results here. 
And especially if other Eboni/BO users would try it.  Eboni's
beautiful tones and BO's luminance are what really make this print
sing.


>If someone wants the ultimate dmax, that's cool.. doesn't  
>mean that it's the be all and end all for everyone's tastes or  
>work... nor the definition of the 'proper' black and white print.

Yes, dmax is important to have when you want it, but it isn't the only
thing that matters.  I was at the library today reading the
introduction in a biography of Walker Evans, and how his approach was
the polar opposite of the "art" approach.  It was a good reminder that
there are so many ways to do BW.

 
>Tyler wrote "Some of these processes have come to fruition, some 
>of them, in the right hands with the right images, can make 
>beautiful art."
> 
> .. perfect ..

Ditto.


Regards,
Clayton


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

. Glad there are still some folks I know around and abouts.

Dan


Welcome back from me, also, Dan.

James Irelan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn <cafrayn@y...> 
wrote:
...
> hey teach.. you forgot to say who won... don't be shy... :)))))

Honestly, I wish it had been someone else, it would have made it much easier to make my 
point about the state of the art (I was pulling it off until y'all started gabbing). Despite the 
individual, I think the competition result is amazing for us B&W inkjet workers.
Hey, the teach is Dan, taught me, taught most of the stuff that led to much of what people 
here are doing now, and not even aware of it. I should also point out that Steve 
"quadtone4" below was printing quads before me, I met him about when I met Dan.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo" <jvlist@c...>
...
> I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Tyler at his Seattle studio a few weeks ago...

thank you for the kind words John. It's such a pleasure to finally get together with people 
we've known for years through these lists.
John moderates another very important list, ScanHi-End, and helped me a great deal when 
I got my Howtek.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" <cj@c...> wrote:
...
> The Arches print, by technical standards shared by many photographers,
> would not be considered "good", yet is has a beauty that 1/3 of the
> people responded to...

Clayton, a very interesting and telling experience. I've played with Arches a bit but did not 
take it very far. But it was obvious to me that there was something there, something  
unique that the right imagery could exploit. Recently I played with some Magnani fine art 
papers, also uncoated. Seemed like some real possibilities there too, but quite soft.

I don't want any of my comments to suggest I think matte is "better" than gloss. I have no 
doubt that the right marriage of image and materials with a significantly higher dmax and 
glossier surface could also be extraordinary. Certainly many decades of traditional prints 
proves that. I was pointing out the fact that other possibilities can be clearly impressive to 
a wide variety of people.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "quadtone4" <sdmey4@a...> 
wrote:
...
>...The combo was Tyler, Studio Print, Cone Inks, 
> And a 9600& Hahnemuhle paper. Word is Epson(the host of the event)
> wasn't too happy...

well, I seriously doubt that the huge dinosaur eye of Seiko Corporation managed to focus 
on this little event in this mud puddle of a town. The regional Epson rep was quite 
gracious, making note of the fact I do not use UC inks in my chip protected printer, said 
he understood my concerns, and also told me I should be quite pleased with the new 
printers and ink set. I hope to keep that dialogue open with him.
I hope he'd find an interest in what people are doing, and share a mutual interest in 
beautiful prints. Surely people like us represent an insignificant percentage of their 
consumables sales, but represent how amazing and flexible their hardware can be.
There were a few others there with more reason for concern...
Tyler

>
> ...
> > The Arches print, by technical standards shared by many  
> photographers,
> > would not be considered "good", yet is has a beauty that 1/3 of the
> > people responded to...
>
> Clayton, a very interesting and telling experience. I've played  
> with Arches a bit but did not
> take it very far. But it was obvious to me that there was something  
> there, something
> unique that the right imagery could exploit.

I bought a big piece of Arches paper once, and was surprised at how  
thick and stiff it was.  And I had to cut off the deckled edges,  
which was too bad, just to get it into my 1160, which I was using at  
the time, I think with Generations (wished I'd just stayed with that  
combo, sometimes!).  The paper was so stiff that the printer could  
barely thread it.  But I managed to profile it, and make a nice print  
on it of a flowers/vase still life.  That print lives on a music  
stand in one of my rooms, and whenever I look at it, I think how nice  
it is, that there's something to it.  So I'm glad to hear of someone  
else mentioning this paper, because few seem to be investigating it.   
Most seem to print on Somerset Velvet, if they use an uncoated  
paper.  I have no idea how it measures up in terms of d max or  
anything, but I know that I made a print on it that has a nice  
quality to it.

James

Tyler Boley wrote:

>
>Hey, the teach is Dan, taught me, taught most of the stuff that led to much of what people 
>here are doing now, and not even aware of it. I should also point out that Steve 
>"quadtone4" below was printing quads before me, I met him about when I met Dan.
>
>  
>
For the newbies it may be interesting to do a Google search with   
spinics epson culbertson   to see what the progress was in 6 years of 
B&W printing and what hasn't changed :-)

Ernst

James wrote:
"Welcome back from me, also, Dan."

Thanks James.  Good to be back.

Dan

This is the message I posted a while back (#57907):


I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using various
methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN
inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately. Seeing the
possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local CompUsa
on the newer HP printers using their gray inks. I am a hobbyist, and
do not sell.

Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy prints.
Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just
spent a lot of money on the 4000. I am just not keen on the bronzing
one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers. I wondered how much
of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely
conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a paltry
~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range. Was I too
influenced by numbers?

So I did an experiment. I printed the same image (see attached
link) to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo
Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear. There is absolutely
no difference in the detail rendered in these prints. Tonal
transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully
reproduced in both prints. The original was a 4x5 transparency
scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico print
was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO
bronzing.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583

I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them in
coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall. These are just
regular folk, most who appreciate art. I sampled a total of 46
individuals, both men and women. They were allowed to handle the
prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted. I
asked them to pick their preference of the two.

To cut to the chase:

30 people prefered the matte print.
16 people prefered the glossy print.

So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
high DMax print? Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
DMax? Is it really worth it? Am I trying to rationalize the
limitation of my 4000?

Regards.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> This will be a bit long, but I find it very interesting-
> 
> Last week there was a digital "festival" sponsored by our local pro
> Epson dealer. He does a very good job hosting each year and brings 
in
> various stars to give presentations, etc.. We've had Bruce Fraser 
and
> others, this year Greg Gorman was the major star, also John Panozzo
> from Colorbyte (ImagePrint), Epson reps, Onyx reps, Chromix, the 
usual
> suspects.
> For the first time there was a print competition. Any antendee could
> enter, and the winners were chosen by a completely open vote by all.
> There was mostly color of course, everything from large fine art to
> reproduction on canvas, a variety of surfaces and subject matter. 
Also
> some B&W. Even a UC over platinum print. Quality of work was from
> fairly accomplished amateur to internationally known fine artists.
> 
> And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party 
fine
> art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
> individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
> apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
> process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
> print got three times more votes than any other print entered.
> 
> I find this amazing. The point, to me, is this- it's not about the
> numbers, it's not about who has the power to squash smaller 
companies,
> and not about presuppositions about technical superiority or what
> photographs are "supposed" to look like.
> Some of these processes have come to fruition, some of them, in the
> right hands with the right images, can make beautiful art.
> 
> Obviously beautiful art. Not, sort of, or maybe, or
> if-you-look-at-it-right...
> But to the majority there by a huge margin, over color, over blacker
> blacks, relatively unsophisticated eyes and critical eyes together. 
I
> think we forget how far we have come.
> 
> "We" may get pushed out, may become marginalized, or evolve into
> something else, but are significant in a larger sense. Some things 
are
> just about the art, you know? Thank goodness for the innovators. 
Keep

> pushing it, and support your 3rd party suppliers.
> The votes are in, they are making it happen.
> Tyler

How about a URL to the winning image, and the runnerup? I'd love to see it.
--
Bruce Watson


Tyler Boley wrote:

> This will be a bit long, but I find it very interesting-
>
> Last week there was a digital "festival" sponsored by our local pro
> Epson dealer. He does a very good job hosting each year and brings in
> various stars to give presentations, etc.. We've had Bruce Fraser and
> others, this year Greg Gorman was the major star, also John Panozzo
> from Colorbyte (ImagePrint), Epson reps, Onyx reps, Chromix, the usual
> suspects.
> For the first time there was a print competition. Any antendee could
> enter, and the winners were chosen by a completely open vote by all.
> There was mostly color of course, everything from large fine art to
> reproduction on canvas, a variety of surfaces and subject matter. Also
> some B&W. Even a UC over platinum print. Quality of work was from
> fairly accomplished amateur to internationally known fine artists.
>
> And the winner was, apparently by an overwhelming margin...
> A B&W print, made with 3rd party monochromatic inks, on 3rd party fine
> art "matte" paper. Placement was by artist, not by print, so an
> individual could not place more than once. Had it been by piece,
> apparently the second entry by the same person, using the same
> process, would have taken second place. In fact, that "second place"
> print got three times more votes than any other print entered.
>
> I find this amazing. The point, to me, is this- it's not about the
> numbers, it's not about who has the power to squash smaller companies,
> and not about presuppositions about technical superiority or what
> photographs are "supposed" to look like.
> Some of these processes have come to fruition, some of them, in the
> right hands with the right images, can make beautiful art.
>
> Obviously beautiful art. Not, sort of, or maybe, or
> if-you-look-at-it-right...
> But to the majority there by a huge margin, over color, over blacker
> blacks, relatively unsophisticated eyes and critical eyes together. I
> think we forget how far we have come.
>
> "We" may get pushed out, may become marginalized, or evolve into
> something else, but are significant in a larger sense. Some things are
> just about the art, you know? Thank goodness for the innovators. Keep
> pushing it, and support your 3rd party suppliers.
> The votes are in, they are making it happen.
> Tyler
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> To cut to the chase:
> 
> 30 people prefered the matte print.
> 16 people prefered the glossy print.
> 
> So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for 
> glossy high DMax print? 

Is an inkjet matte print as flat as a darkroom matte print? I have never
felt happy with the black obtained in the darkroom (Ilford MG RC) on matte,
c.f. gloss.

Give me gloss any day.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I think it's simply different strokes for different folks and in many cases
different strokes for different images.  Each has its place and neither is
better.  Some prints will be according to any particular individual better
suited to one or the other in the same way that some are "better" (always
only in the eye of the beholder) in sepia rather than cool.  But it is
worthwhile people understanding the properties of each. The dynamic range
(in density, Exposure Zones or f-Stops) of one vs the other is just one of
these properties.  With understanding comes better application of your
vision.  

I'd like to think that Tyler won his competition, firstly, because he took a
damn good photo and, secondly, he chose materials and a means of
presentation that took the qualities of that image and made them shine.  I
don't believe that his win says anything about which format is better.  I
don't believe anyone can say one is better than the other.  What we can each
say, though, is which format WE like the most for a particular image and
come to understand and express why we like it.  This is artistic choice and
expression.  

(I am reminded of my first wine tasting session when I was told that you
can't be taught what you like, only the means to identify why you like it
and thereby increase the probability that you can articulate what you like
and thus acquire more wine that you like.)

As for the numbers, people seem to forget that they allow us a means of
expressing to one another what results we get when we try something or
another.  Saying one is darkish but not quite as dark as the other doesn't
help much.  Measuring and quantifying certain aspects of what we see
enhances communication and understanding.  It is your choice as to whether
you prefer medium a with dMax of 1.7 or medium b with dMax of 1.8 (or 2.45).
The numbers are simply there to help you communicate.  We are fortunate that
the ICC has gone to great lengths to provide us with means of communicating
colour.

The issue with numbers is often people's apathy (a harsh word but likely
true enough) towards understanding them.  Such a Zone person, for example,
may hear the phrase "dMax=1.65 and dMin of 0.05" and can't fathom to
understand it - hasn't made the effort to understand that this is merely an
expression of what he/she already knows in a slightly different language.  A
little effort and this person would know that the phrase means a dynamic
range of 5.3 f-Stops and this person could also determine how stops were
above and how many below Zone V 18% reflectance could be reproduced.  The
same Zone System person might also struggle to find when he/she switches to
a digital camera from film why exposing for Zone V doesn't give him/her the
shadow detail they think they should get.  A little effort would show that
they are better off (due to the way a digital sensor works as opposed to
film) "exposing to the right" and fixing mid grey at their desk. Just a
couple of examples.

Now I have picked on the Zone guys here only by example.  (I did so because
there are so often requests for a "digital Zone system for dummies" here.
It only takes a little effort for a great reward.)  The point of my argument
is that the numbers allow expression and understanding.  The artistic use of
this understanding is entirely up to you and your personal preference.  To
be honest, if you had true artistic integrity you would not care whether 30
people preferred the "glossy" (I would likely hate it BTW) over the "matte".
It's which one best allows you to express what you feel is in the image that
matters.

Congratulations Tyler on seeing what must have been a beautiful image and
taking it to fruition so that your vision can be shared!  If only we could
all see the print.

> From: Shilesh Jani <shilesh.jani@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:13:14 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...
> 
> This is the message I posted a while back (#57907):
> 
> 
> I have been happily printing and giving away b/w prints using various
> methods for the last 3 years, always on matte papers using FS & FSN
> inks on a 1280, and QTR UC inks on a 4000 lately. Seeing the
> possibility of gloss prints, I printed some images at a local CompUsa
> on the newer HP printers using their gray inks. I am a hobbyist, and
> do not sell.
> 
> Seeing the HP prints' wow-punch got me interested in glossy prints.
> Soon I was asking myself how to go about doing that, having just
> spent a lot of money on the 4000. I am just not keen on the bronzing
> one gets with the UC inks and RC coated papers. I wondered how much
> of my own "wow-punch" reaction to glossy prints was purely
> conditioned on knowing that the matte prints were giving me a paltry
> ~1.7 DMax, while the RC prints were in the 2.2 range. Was I too
> influenced by numbers?
> 
> So I did an experiment. I printed the same image (see attached
> link) to 6.5 x 10 inches with QTR on EEM and on Pictorico Photo
> Gallery Glossy, both neutral, both very linear. There is absolutely
> no difference in the detail rendered in these prints. Tonal
> transitions (some subtle, some drastic) in the image are faithfully
> reproduced in both prints. The original was a 4x5 transparency
> scanned on a 4870 scanner; it has tons of detail. The Pictorico print
> was sprayed very carefully with Printshield, so it exhibited NO
> bronzing.
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3066583
> 
> I showed the prints to co-workers at lunch, randomly stopping them in
> coridoors, in their offices, in the smoke-hall. These are just
> regular folk, most who appreciate art. I sampled a total of 46
> individuals, both men and women. They were allowed to handle the
> prints, look at them anyway they chose for as long as they wanted. I
> asked them to pick their preference of the two.
> 
> To cut to the chase:
> 
> 30 people prefered the matte print.
> 16 people prefered the glossy print.
> 
> So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
> high DMax print? Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
> DMax? Is it really worth it? Am I trying to rationalize the
> limitation of my 4000?
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Shilesh
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Shilesh Jani"
<shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:

> 30 people prefered the matte print.
> 16 people prefered the glossy print.
> 
> So what is this desire of so many of us (myself included) for glossy
> high DMax print? Are we conditioned purely by the numerical value of
> DMax? Is it really worth it? Am I trying to rationalize the
> limitation of my 4000?
> 
> 
Dmax must be the Holy Grail of digital printing.:)

But once both glossy and matt prints are framed under glass, the
difference is greatly reduced to the point that some people would be
hard pressed to differentiate them.

Cheers,
André

- 
Andre said: 
> But once both glossy and matt prints are framed under glass, the
> difference is greatly reduced to the point that some people would be
> hard pressed to differentiate them.


I have three selenium toned digital prints (HRag 308 gr) and three selenium (Ilford cold 
tone paper) toned wet lab prints framed and under glass on my study wall.  Two of the wet 
lab lab prints I can identify, but as to the third print, I can not distinguish it from the 
digital print.  As to my identification of the two wet lab prints, the only reason I can 
identify them, is that I remember the subject matter.  Basically, that is what Andre stated 
in his post.

By the way, Tyler printed the three selenium toned images.

OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?

Martin

Aha!  What is this issue with framing under glass?  I've heard it discussed
before.  To date, I've always framed prints for friend and folks under 
glass.

Do most people on this list not frame their prints under glass typically? If
so, why not? 

I view framing under glass as pretty 'conventional', but what are the other
conventions out there?  What are the effects on different kinds of prints?

Thanks.

Scott

Andre wrote:

>
> But once both glossy and matt prints are framed under glass, the
> difference is greatly reduced to the point that some people would be
> hard pressed to differentiate them.
>
> Cheers,
> Andr\ufffd
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
<mxgo95747@y...> wrote:
...
> OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?

Alright. let's get this over with...

Kalaloch, WA was 1st
Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd

they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm

I doubt the event people will have any page showing stuff about the
event or the competition, I saw no one shooting anything.
This was really all about the prints, so these jpegs don't really tell
you much...

Hope all is well with you Martin, and am happy the prints are wearing
well <G>
Tyler
www.custom-digital.com

Tyler  -
 
Maybe you're giving the printing process too much weight.  Those images are so nice they'd look great printed on a table napkin.
 
Tom Baker

Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
wrote:
...
> OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?

Alright. let's get this over with...

Kalaloch, WA was 1st
Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd

they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm

I doubt the event people will have any page showing stuff about the
event or the competition, I saw no one shooting anything.
This was really all about the prints, so these jpegs don't really tell
you much...

Hope all is well with you Martin, and am happy the prints are wearing
well 
Tyler
www.custom-digital.com




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

On Jun 28, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tom Baker wrote:

> Tyler  -
>
> Maybe you're giving the printing process too much weight.  Those  
> images are so nice they'd look great printed on a table napkin.


The definitive nail in the sponsors' coffin would have been if Tyler  
had  had a print made with their materials as well (which he wouldn't  
have, of course), and the one using SP and Piezotones had still won.   
Somehow I don't think the table napkin print would have had the same  
chance.  I've always found napkins to have crappy d max.  Of course,  
you do get fries with them.

James

Awesome - like I said, if only we could see the actual prints.  Then we
would all have something to aspire to in that even if one didn't like the
particular images (let's say portraits really turned you on rather than
landscapes) I'll bet the prints would be very instructive of what can be
achieved by someone dedicated to the best possible presentation of their
vision.  How about running off a few thousand A4s and sending them to list
members!  ;-)  Seriously, well done Tyler.

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:41:13 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
> <mxgo95747@y...> wrote:
> ...
>> OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?
> 
> Alright. let's get this over with...
> 
> Kalaloch, WA was 1st
> Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd
> 
> they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
> http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm
> 
> I doubt the event people will have any page showing stuff about the
> event or the competition, I saw no one shooting anything.
> This was really all about the prints, so these jpegs don't really tell
> you much...
> 
> Hope all is well with you Martin, and am happy the prints are wearing
> well <G>
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com
>

Personally I would agree!!!  Simply beautiful.

Even printed black only...Oh come on Clayton I am just teasing!!  ;-)

> From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...
> 
> Tyler  -
>  
> Maybe you're giving the printing process too much weight.  Those images are so
> nice they'd look great printed on a table napkin.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
> wrote:
> ...
>> OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?
> 
> Alright. let's get this over with...
> 
> Kalaloch, WA was 1st
> Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd
> 
> they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
> http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm
> 
> I doubt the event people will have any page showing stuff about the
> event or the competition, I saw no one shooting anything.
> This was really all about the prints, so these jpegs don't really tell
> you much...
> 
> Hope all is well with you Martin, and am happy the prints are wearing
> well 
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com

Tyler,

Beautiful images, thank you for providing the link and the motivation 
for me to get out and photograph!

Regards

Martin Carrington

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
> <mxgo95747@y...> wrote:
> ...
> > OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?
> 
> Alright. let's get this over with...
> 
> Kalaloch, WA was 1st
> Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd
> 
> they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
> http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm
>

Ernst wrote:

> For the newbies it may be interesting to do a Google search with   
> spinics epson culbertson   to see what the progress was in 6 years 
of 
> B&W printing and what hasn't changed :-)
> 
> Ernst

Hi Ernst,

That Leben list series also seems to be archived at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson-inkjet/  Unfortunately both 
archives only go back to 1998.  I used to save all the previous 
Leben list emails but can't seem to find them anymore.  Too bad 
since that is where quadtone printing with Epson printers evolved. 
So here is a brief history as I recall it (corrections are welcome):

After a long series of laments about crappy grayscale images on 
inkjet printers I remember a discussion based on my frustrated 
comment "why can't we do four gray inks with a Stylus Color 3000 
like Bruce Fraser describes in Real World Photoshop for standard 
offset printers?"  That snowballed into a discussion on things 
like "would the grays be made by adding white ink to black or just 
thinning the black with transparent medium?" (I admit I favored the 
adding white route since I thought thinned black would fade) 
and "how would you get the driver to print it right?"  Eventually 
Stephen Herron (spelling?) picked that up and ran with it then got 
MIS to sell his gray blends which he used with his Icefields 
software.  Once four gray inks were available from MIS I started 
playing with multiple RIPs (Stylus RIP, Adobe PressReady and 
Sundance R9 plus a couple others) by converting grayscale images 
into CMYK files then manually partitioning the tones in each image 
for the inks using softproofing done by plain old CMYK ink setups in 
Photoshop (version 4 and 5).  That is what I taught Tyler to do and 
I still have a couple of his early, very nice prints done that way.  
Later there was Horse's (now ColorVision) Profiler Pro which did a 
fair job of softproofing the gray inks with a profile if you treated 
it right.  But that manual partitioning system was such a pain in 
the rear, rocket-science, way to do things that other good folks 
(Jon Cone and the Piezography gurus first I think) carried on the 
mission with drivers (RIPS) that did the tonal partitioning for you 
for their proprietary quad inksets. About that same time Paul Roark 
came up with some good RGB methods using the standard Epson drivers 
and MIS inks. I found you could also use ProfilerPro to make a 
softproofing profile for any of those RGB methods but few people 
seemed to pick up on it. Gray inks and workflows proliferated and I 
had to start paying attention to my day job (which paid my bills for 
all those Epson printers I wrecked with experimental inks and 
solvents) and the rest is all probably documented in this here list.

I do remember late in the game, when I was tired of mutating and 
killing Epson printers, pleading with the lords of Epson for a 
CcMmYKkk printer (i.e. with tritone gray/black along with the color 
inks) *and* a printer that had a real blue ink (for me) and red or 
purple ink (for CD Tobie).  Now we have the 1800 and the 
2400/7800/9800.  So they do listen - eventually.  Unfortunately I 
just read here the 2400 with its tritone gray/black is still mixing 
yellow ink into the light tones (shame shame Epson!).  Oh well - the 
3rd party rips are still necessary I guess.  At least Epson now has 
3 gray inks all its own.  About time!  Wonder if I could put those 
Epson grays in one of the old 3000s (just kidding!).

Dan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Carrington" 
<martinc@s...> wrote:
 
> Beautiful images, thank you for providing the link and the motivation 
> for me to get out and photograph!
> 
>

Tyler, thanks for providing the web site.  The images are beautiful.  For a rank amateur, 
they are instructive, in so far that they say Dmax is only part of the process.  

thanks again,

Martin

Beautiful images Tyler.  Did you also replicate the platinum hue of  
the web site images in your prints or were the prints made with the  
stock Piezotones?

Carl

On Jun 28, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
> <mxgo95747@y...> wrote:
> ...
>
>> OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?
>>
>
> Alright. let's get this over with...
>
> Kalaloch, WA was 1st
> Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd
>
> they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
> http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm
>
> I doubt the event people will have any page showing stuff about the
> event or the competition, I saw no one shooting anything.
> This was really all about the prints, so these jpegs don't really tell
> you much...
>
> Hope all is well with you Martin, and am happy the prints are wearing
> well <G>
> Tyler
> www.custom-digital.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, James Irelan
<james@r...> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tom Baker wrote:
> 
> > Tyler  -
> >
> > Maybe you're giving the printing process too much weight.  Those  
> > images are so nice they'd look great printed on a table napkin.
> 
> 
> The definitive nail in the sponsors' coffin would have been if Tyler  
> had  had a print made with their materials as well (which he wouldn't  
> have, of course), and the one using SP and Piezotones had still won.   
> Somehow I don't think the table napkin print would have had the same  
> chance.  I've always found napkins to have crappy d max.  Of course,  
> you do get fries with them.

Really? Fries?

Actually, I know exactly what a UC print would have looked like next
to them...

Tom, there was a lot of nice work there. It really was about the
prints, and that was my reason for reporting it here. I think people
here that have been working on all of this for so long and with so
much skill and talent should have the oportunity to sit back and
celebrate the fact that it works at a high level, and it's obvious to all.
We are an isolated bunch you know...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:
...
> After a long series of laments about crappy grayscale images on 
> inkjet printers...


This is so great to have here, from Dan himself. Once in a while I get
frustrated with the fleefting nature of documented progress of our
craft, and the lack of any community memory of why we are where we are
right now, and come on and rant and rave about the past
accomplishments of the real innovators.

I think Dan should be required to come back about every six months and
post something like this again. But he's probably going to wonder off
and become absorbed in developing non petrol cars or something...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<scho@m...> wrote:
> Beautiful images Tyler.  Did you also replicate the platinum hue of  
> the web site images in your prints or were the prints made with the  
> stock Piezotones?

Carl, the prints are PiezoTones but not really stock. There is some
physical mixing and some in-RIP blending going on. If I recall, the
jpegs for the site were made by coverting the gray files to RGB
(custom gamma), assigning custom preview profiles of the inks made
with your i1 method, then converting to sRGB for the web.
How much they look like the prints depends on many things, but they
feel more like the prints this way than straight gray. Also, I don't
necessarily print them all with exactly the same hue, but I believe
these were all made the same.
It's been a while.

Tyler

Tyler  -
 
I understand that it was all about the prints.  You're sure correct.  It's a great accolade for you and all of the others that have helped pionee and develope this stuff.  Certainly the most surprising part of this is the venue that this took place in, and the fact that, apparently, all of those casting a vote, voted thier real preference.  These are the kinds of things that will help validate these processes in eyes of galleries, the general public, and other photographers.   
 
I think it unlikely, however, that those in the forefront of these process will do much sitting and enjoying the glow.  So many feel that we're only beginning on where this can go.  It's great.
 
And, you do deserve some applause for your personal efforts.
 
 
Tom Baker
 

Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@..., James Irelan
wrote:
> 
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tom Baker wrote:
> 
> > Tyler -
> >
> > Maybe you're giving the printing process too much weight. Those 
> > images are so nice they'd look great printed on a table napkin.
> 
> 
> The definitive nail in the sponsors' coffin would have been if Tyler 
> had had a print made with their materials as well (which he wouldn't 
> have, of course), and the one using SP and Piezotones had still won. 
> Somehow I don't think the table napkin print would have had the same 
> chance. I've always found napkins to have crappy d max. Of course, 
> you do get fries with them.

Really? Fries?

Actually, I know exactly what a UC print would have looked like next
to them...

Tom, there was a lot of nice work there. It really was about the
prints, and that was my reason for reporting it here. I think people
here that have been working on all of this for so long and with so
much skill and talent should have the oportunity to sit back and
celebrate the fact that it works at a high level, and it's obvious to all.
We are an isolated bunch you know...
Tyler




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Tyler wrote:
"But he's probably going to wonder off and become absorbed in 
developing non petrol cars or something..."

Actually I was looking into coming up with a hydrogen fuel module for 
my old 3000s and turning them into a tortilla press.  But maybe with 
the right power train I could also use them as an electric vehicle...

Dan

have you forgotten the vodka component? Gotta work that into it...

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Danny
Culbertson" <danculb@b...> wrote:

> Tyler wrote:
> "But he's probably going to wonder off and become absorbed in 
> developing non petrol cars or something..."
> 
> Actually I was looking into coming up with a hydrogen fuel module for 
> my old 3000s and turning them into a tortilla press.  But maybe with 
> the right power train I could also use them as an electric vehicle...
> 
> Dan

Tyler, Your images are absolutely superb!
I was just up in Seattle visiting my daughter on the way to Whistler, BC and I planned to visit your studio and , in the rush of things, forgot. I'll be back!
Congratulations on your success in competition. 

Ian




Message: 15        
   Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:41:13 -0000

   From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
Subject: Re: Will we be obsolete? More...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mxgo95747"
<mxgo95747@y...> wrote:
....
> OK Tyler, how about posting your two images on your web site?

Alright. let's get this over with...

Kalaloch, WA was 1st
Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd

they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm

I doubt the event people will have any page showing stuff about the
event or the competition, I saw no one shooting anything.
This was really all about the prints, so these jpegs don't really tell
you much...

Hope all is well with you Martin, and am happy the prints are wearing
well <G>
Tyler
www.custom-digital.com

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

Tyler,

> Alright. let's get this over with...
> 
> Kalaloch, WA was 1st
> Aspens, Mazama, WA was 2nd
> 
> they are both on a very old and hidden page amongst other work here-
> http://www.tylerboley.com/landscapes/index.htm
>...

Outstanding work, congratulations.

I'm a real fan of shooting into the sun, so I especially relate to the
Kalalock shot.  Were you able to capture this on a single film, or did you
have to use a couple of shots (as I did for my Grand Teton -- MF Tech Pan --
shot)?

I'm just now working up my first digital camera (Canon XT/350D) "B&W" shots,
and I'm feeling a bit like I'm back with an 1160 and OEM color inks in the
"pre-Piezo" days, but at the image capture end of the process.  I suspect
we're going to go through an evolution of custom workflows at the capture
end not unlike the printing end.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Danny Culbertson wrote:

>Tyler wrote:
>"But he's probably going to wonder off and become absorbed in 
>developing non petrol cars or something..."
>
>Actually I was looking into coming up with a hydrogen fuel module for 
>my old 3000s and turning them into a tortilla press.  But maybe with 
>the right power train I could also use them as an electric vehicle...
>
>Dan
>
>  
>
It will not replace the Cummins diesel of Bruce Roorda :-)

Ernst

Paul,
I assume you are shooting in RAW file format, not jpeg; if not, I recommend
that as the only way.

Here are the raw converters you should evaluate, IMO.
Digital Photo Professional, also known as DPP (you already have it; comes
with the Canon XT)
Adobe Camera Raw v3.0, also known as ACR (comes with CS2, and is significant
improvement over v2.4)
RawShooter Essentials, also known as RSE (currently free download, RSE Pro
version coming soon)
Capture One Pro v3.7, also known as C1 (free 30 day trial.  I would not
purchase this, wait for v4.0 and compare to others)

I find that each converter has its strengths and weaknesses.  I currently
use all three, picking one over the other depending on the image and what I'
m trying to get from it.
The one I use most often is C1.  ACR is quite good; having built-in tools
for reducing chromatic aberration is very nice when you need it.  While RSE
still needs more work, most significantly in color rendition, it shows great
promise for a v1 release.
C1 needs to get v4 out to address some nagging issues and promised features,
and if you don't own C1, it might be best to only evaluate v3.7 under trial
to see what it is currently capable of.  When C1 v4 and RSE Pro are both
released, compare them before committing your money.  It's also possible
that you find neither program offers significant benefits over ACR for your
needs.
I prepaid for 5 updates of C1, so I will have the latest version for quite
some time.  I anticipate that I will purchase RSE Pro based on the strong
showing of RSE v1, if the price is not too high.
Which one is best; same as using more than one converter is a personal
preference, like choosing inks I suppose.  You got it very right when you
said workflow, that is a big part of it, and why many people are not
satisfied with the converters from the manufacturers.  I have never given
Canon's DPP much use, not because of output quality, it is very good, but
because of the workflow it requires.

Good luck with the XT.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul Roark
 Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...

I'm just now working up my first digital camera (Canon XT/350D) "B&W" shots,
and I'm feeling a bit like I'm back with an 1160 and OEM color inks in the
"pre-Piezo" days, but at the image capture end of the process.  I suspect
we're going to go through an evolution of custom workflows at the capture
end not unlike the printing end.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com




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

Paul,

>I suspect we're going to go through an evolution of custom workflows 
>at the capture end not unlike the printing end.

I found that it's a very different set of Photoshop skills and
sesitivities that's called upon compared to working with scanned negs,
like a completely different track or channel.  It's been about a year
now for me with the Pro-1 and I can look back and see how those skills
have evolved and matured.  

In December I added a pocket sized digicam to the mix, and have found
that each camera has its own unique "signature", that shows up
especially in the BW to color conversion.  It's sort of like
conversing with someone from Texas vs someone from South Carolina <g>.
 There are slight but consistent differences in the way images from
the two cameras have to be treated.  

I guess the most significant thing I've observed during the year is
that the more I've come to understand the digital images and what they
require, the more I've come to enjoy the process and the better I've
gotten at wringing the most I can get out of them.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Paul

You should also evaluate Bibble Pro. It is much less
expensive than Phase One C1 and (particularly helpful
for batch processing) is the fastest converter out
there.

Woody Spedden

--- John Moody <moodymz3@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Paul,
I assume you are shooting in RAW file format, not
jpeg; if not, I recommend
that as the only way.

Here are the raw converters you should evaluate, IMO.
Digital Photo Professional, also known as DPP (you
already have it; comes
with the Canon XT)
Adobe Camera Raw v3.0, also known as ACR (comes with
CS2, and is significant
improvement over v2.4)
RawShooter Essentials, also known as RSE (currently
free download, RSE Pro
version coming soon)
Capture One Pro v3.7, also known as C1 (free 30 day
trial.  I would not
purchase this, wait for v4.0 and compare to others)

I find that each converter has its strengths and
weaknesses.  I currently
use all three, picking one over the other depending on
the image and what I'
m trying to get from it.
The one I use most often is C1.  ACR is quite good;
having built-in tools
for reducing chromatic aberration is very nice when
you need it.  While RSE
still needs more work, most significantly in color
rendition, it shows great
promise for a v1 release.
C1 needs to get v4 out to address some nagging issues
and promised features,
and if you don't own C1, it might be best to only
evaluate v3.7 under trial
to see what it is currently capable of.  When C1 v4
and RSE Pro are both
released, compare them before committing your money. 
It's also possible
that you find neither program offers significant
benefits over ACR for your
needs.
I prepaid for 5 updates of C1, so I will have the
latest version for quite
some time.  I anticipate that I will purchase RSE Pro
based on the strong
showing of RSE v1, if the price is not too high.
Which one is best; same as using more than one
converter is a personal
preference, like choosing inks I suppose.  You got it
very right when you
said workflow, that is a big part of it, and why many
people are not
satisfied with the converters from the manufacturers. 
I have never given
Canon's DPP much use, not because of output quality,
it is very good, but
because of the workflow it requires.

Good luck with the XT.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Paul Roark
 Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete?
More...

I'm just now working up my first digital camera (Canon
XT/350D) "B&W" shots,
and I'm feeling a bit like I'm back with an 1160 and
OEM color inks in the
"pre-Piezo" days, but at the image capture end of the
process.  I suspect
we're going to go through an evolution of custom
workflows at the capture
end not unlike the printing end.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com




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



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


    
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

> It will not replace the Cummins diesel of Bruce Roorda :-)
> 
> Ernst

Ahh - more and more secrets of the Leben List Illuminati being 
exposed...

Dan

Scott, 

My post was in reference of Shilesh comments where he'd showed prints
to co-workers: 30 persons out of 46 preferred the matt print over the
glossy which for some reason I understood that these were not framed
under glass, making the difference between them more obvious.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin
<scott@a...> wrote:
> Aha!  What is this issue with framing under glass?  I've heard it
discussed
> before.  To date, I've always framed prints for friend and folks under 
> glass.
> 

So have I and I show my prints at art fairs. But that is not what my
post was about.
Cheers,
André

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
...
> I'm a real fan of shooting into the sun, so I especially relate to the
> Kalalock shot.  Were you able to capture this on a single film, or
did you
> have to use a couple of shots (as I did for my Grand Teton -- MF
Tech Pan --
> shot)?

First of all, thank you and every one else for your comments about the
imagery and work in general, it's been very gratifying.

I'm sorry this will get too long, film techniques and film vrs digital
discussions can get off track here real quick.
That was a 5x7 3x neg, at least a minus 4 or 5 development. The
developer used a highly compensation staining agent called
pyrocatechin. The partially revealed disk of the sun is defined on
film, as well as full shadow detail.
My girlfriend shot some color neg snapshots that evening, the range is
so great the sky is completely blown and foreground shadows completely
black in the dime store prints. Hard hard back light.
Multiple exposures could have encompassed that range I'm sure, but the
surf would not have been much fun to work with when compositing and
definitely not the "actual" scene.
To me this is an example of how far digital capture has to go yet.
It's not even close to being able to make this image, not even close.
Even if it could somehow capture the range in some pleasing manner,
and capture the water at moment the shooter thinks it is arranged
"just so", it would be quite lacking in tactile detail compared to a
large format neg.
I shoot some digital, I clearly embrace digital printing, but until we
can really do everything we need to do, we can't let some of these
tools completely slip away.
This is an old image, but has appeal, so I have had to discuss it too
many times over the years. I wouldn't mind if it moved aside for
recent work. But it's interesting in this way-

Photography tools evolved for decades and decades to the point where
we could capture pretty much anything we wanted, and this makes the
art of photography more and more compelling. If it's there, and sparks
some idea in a brain, a skilled imager can make it happen for us to
consider.
Do we really want to so rapidly abandon these hard won tools, so the
manufacturers like Agfa drop as fast as we are witnessing, and thereby
suddenly limit the actual pictures we can make? I don't want to go
backwards, I want to be able to make any image I want. And what really
pisses me off, is that those choices have been taken out of my hands.
This evolution is happening in spite of us users, not for us, argh!!!!

I could not have made this image with the technology touted today.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:

"I found that it's a very different set of Photoshop skills and
sesitivities that's called upon compared to working with scanned 
negs, like a completely different track or channel." snip  

I just started messing with my Dimage A2 with Camera Raw using the 
calibrate sliders to selectively convert a color shot to grayscale.  
It is amazing to me how much better that works than all my past 
experiments with scanning color negatives then converting to 
grayscale in Photoshop.  I can't reallys say why but I get some 
really intersting "glowing" results with the digital image. Maybe 
because most digital cameras are actually gryascale cameras with 
lots of little filters.  Haven't printed any of those experiments 
yet so I have no idea how that silverish glow will travel to inkjet 
paper but I was surprised at how much more pleasant the digtal 
camera B&W results were than the color negative results.  I don't 
know if that will make me give up B&W film - probably have to get a 
lot more resolution and image sharpness to wean me from that.  But 
if I had one of those expensive medium format digital backs I might 
well bail out on B&W film the way I'm progressively bailing on color 
film. Still up in the air on that issue technologically speaking. 

But -- I have never been a big fan of carrying around a lot of B&W 
filters to map colors to gray tones.  Makes shooting not all that 
much fun for me. (Screw filter on, screw filter off, put in filter 
book, take out of filter book, where is that darn filter I just had 
it!) Maybe some folks handle that routine as a comforting zen sort 
of thing - but to me it was always just a drag.  But with a digital 
camera you have an infinite set of B&W filters right in the camera.  
Very convenient!  Of course you have to actually "apply" 
the "filter" back in the "darkroom" rather than the field so you 
still need to sort of previsualize the results. The B&W mode on my 
camera viewfinder only does the Minolta interpretation of a 
grayscale image which is seldom good for anything but infrared 
filtered shots.

What would be really nice would be a digital camera that had some of 
the same color to B&W flexibility you have with camera raw.  Then 
you could atually get an idea in the field what sort of B&W results 
you'd get.  Sort of previsualization on the LCD rather than in the 
minds eye.  Except you could change your mind back in the lab. Even 
composite multiple B&W renditions in the computer for selecive 
areas. Too darn convenient maybe! Probably spend all my time 
tweaking sliders in Camera Raw and oohhing at the results and never 
get around to printing any of them.  Then again, LCD TVs are getting 
cheap enough to hang around the house and use as multiple digital 
picture frames... but that is another technological controversy that 
probably belongs more in the "are we obsolete" thread.

Dan

I wrote:
but that is another technological controversy that probably belongs 
more in the "are we obsolete" thread.

Oops - this *is* the "are we obsolete" thread.  Can't figure out where 
I am any more.

Dan

Danny Culbertson wrote:


> What would be really nice would be a digital camera that had some of 
> the same color to B&W flexibility you have with camera raw.  Then 
> you could atually get an idea in the field what sort of B&W results 
> you'd get.  Sort of previsualization on the LCD rather than in the 
> minds eye.  Except you could change your mind back in the lab.

Canon's low-end DSLR, the 20D, almost - not quite - manages this well. 
It has a B&W jpeg mode, which saves a monochrome jpeg, and the user can 
select what "filter" to apply to the image and also, I think, what 
"print" type (sepia, etc) rendition to make. I've used it once. You get 
a nice B&W image on the LCD and you can see how you like the results. 
The camera can save images in "RAW + jpeg" mode, so you can always 
change your mind in the darkroom later using the 12 bit raw file, and 
aren't stuck with the monochrome 8 bit jpeg at any time.

Nice, as far as it goes. What it could really use, though, is a way to 
switch through different filters while you are looking at the image - 
without having to dive deep into a menu to switch filters and without 
having to take a second image of the same scene. If you could sit there 
and look at a B&W image on the LCD, and use the thumb wheel to switch 
between red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet filters, you'd not 
only have a killer B&W teaching tool, but a very nice visualization aid 
in the field. Unfortunately, no dice on this.

--
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

Right on. Nicely said.

Tyler Boley wrote:

>
>
> Photography tools evolved for decades and decades to the point where
> we could capture pretty much anything we wanted, and this makes the
> art of photography more and more compelling. If it's there, and sparks
> some idea in a brain, a skilled imager can make it happen for us to
> consider.
> Do we really want to so rapidly abandon these hard won tools, so the
> manufacturers like Agfa drop as fast as we are witnessing, and thereby
> suddenly limit the actual pictures we can make? I don't want to go
> backwards, I want to be able to make any image I want. And what really
> pisses me off, is that those choices have been taken out of my hands.
> This evolution is happening in spite of us users, not for us, argh!!!!
>
> I could not have made this image with the technology touted today.
> Tyler
>

All,

OT but the situation is analogous to what happened when CD's replaced 
analog vinyl LP's - good (rare) LP playback equipment far exceeded 
the sound quality of CD and still does, but LP's became marginalized. 

Regards

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin 
<scott@a...> wrote:
> Right on. Nicely said.
> 
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Photography tools evolved for decades and decades to the point 
where
> > we could capture pretty much anything we wanted, and this makes 
the
> > art of photography more and more compelling. If it's there, and 
sparks
> > some idea in a brain, a skilled imager can make it happen for us 
to
> > consider.
> > Do we really want to so rapidly abandon these hard won tools, so 
the
> > manufacturers like Agfa drop as fast as we are witnessing, and 
thereby
> > suddenly limit the actual pictures we can make? I don't want to go
> > backwards, I want to be able to make any image I want. And what 
really
> > pisses me off, is that those choices have been taken out of my 
hands.
> > This evolution is happening in spite of us users, not for us, 
argh!!!!

> >
> > I could not have made this image with the technology touted today.
> > Tyler
> >

Maybe I'm drawing the analogy too far but, there has
been more development of analog playback (turntables,
cartridges etc) since the advent of CD than ever
before because the people who care supported the
industry. We realized the "horrible" sound of CD
compared to quality analog so we continued to buy in
spite of ever rising prices for such gear. Now in 2005
vinyl again represents a very substantial market. NOt
in percentage terms of course because
non-discriminating i.e. non-educated listeners can buy
CD for such rock bottom prices so that dominates the
market statistically. Anyway, my point is that so long
as there is tremendous advocacy there will be film.
Fuji, for one, is not going away anytime soon. But our
choices sadly will be limited.

Three cheers for the re-emergence of Ilford!!

Woody Spedden

--- Martin Carrington <martinc@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
All,

OT but the situation is analogous to what happened
when CD's replaced 
analog vinyl LP's - good (rare) LP playback equipment
far exceeded 
the sound quality of CD and still does, but LP's
became marginalized. 

Regards

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
Scott McLoughlin 
<scott@a...> wrote:
> Right on. Nicely said.
> 
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Photography tools evolved for decades and decades
to the point 
where
> > we could capture pretty much anything we wanted,
and this makes 
the
> > art of photography more and more compelling. If
it's there, and 
sparks
> > some idea in a brain, a skilled imager can make it
happen for us 
to
> > consider.
> > Do we really want to so rapidly abandon these hard
won tools, so 
the
> > manufacturers like Agfa drop as fast as we are
witnessing, and 
thereby
> > suddenly limit the actual pictures we can make? I
don't want to go
> > backwards, I want to be able to make any image I
want. And what 
really
> > pisses me off, is that those choices have been
taken out of my 
hands.
> > This evolution is happening in spite of us users,
not for us, 
argh!!!!
> >
> > I could not have made this image with the
technology touted today.
> > Tyler
> >




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


    
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

Dan,
Take your laptop with you

I will occasionally shoot with the camera tethered to the laptop; if I only
had one with a decent LCD it would be fine indeed.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Danny
Culbertson
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
<snip>

What would be really nice would be a digital camera that had some of
the same color to B&W flexibility you have with camera raw.


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

Hello Dan,

>>"I found that it's a very different set of Photoshop skills and
>>sesitivities that's called upon compared to working with scanned 
>>negs, like a completely different track or channel." snip  
>
>I can't really say why but I get some really intersting "glowing" 
>results with the digital image. 

Every time I'm surprised at something I have to remind myself that
it's not the same medium.  I think I unconsciously assume that a
digicam is just electronic film, but it isn't (in spite of a CF card
ad in a Target store titled "High Speed Digital Film"...right next to
the "Digital Starter Set" consisting of a digital camera and a 4x6
printer for $99).  


>I don't know if that will make me give up B&W film 

I thought I'd never switch, then started using an 8mp Canon Pro-1 and
went through a mourning period because I couldn't get my beloved Tri-X
look, then suddenly found myself enjoying photography more than I had
in several years.


>(Screw filter on, screw filter off, put in filter book, take 
>out of filter book, where is that darn filter I just had 
>it!)
 
Hah!  and then you drop it in the sand <g>



>...still need to sort of previsualize the results. The B&W mode 
>on my camera viewfinder only does the Minolta interpretation of a 
>grayscale image which is seldom good for anything but infrared 
>filtered shots.
> 
>What would be really nice would be a digital camera that had some 
>of  the same color to B&W flexibility you have with camera raw.  
>Then you could atually get an idea in the field what sort of B&W 
>results you'd get.  Sort of previsualization on the LCD rather 
>than in the minds eye.  Except you could change your mind back 
>in the lab. 

You may be able to do this with your camera now, I think most will.  I
shoot RAW images in BW mode.  With the Pro-1 the LCD and EVF are in BW
so I'm visualizing and composing that way.  But the RAW file keeps the
color info and I restore it in the RAW conversion.  Then I apply my
color to BW conversion techniques in PS. I love working that way and
is one reason I've not gotten into a DSLR - I'm hooked on the preview
screen, it's like a miniature view camera.


>Too darn convenient maybe! Probably spend all my time tweaking
>sliders in Camera Raw and oohhing at the results and never 
>get around to printing any of them.  

I've been using digital capture about a year now and can look back and
see a process of refinement over time as my understanding and skill
grew.  I've got it pretty well down to a lean and mean efficient
workflow and don't waste much time.  It's a really nifty fun and
creative world.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Tyler,

>Photography tools evolved for decades and decades to the point 
>where we could capture pretty much anything we wanted, and this 
>makes the art of photography more and more compelling. If it's 
>there, and sparks some idea in a brain, a skilled imager can make 
>it happen for us to consider.
>Do we really want to so rapidly abandon these hard won tools, so 
>the manufacturers like Agfa drop as fast as we are witnessing, 
>and thereby suddenly limit the actual pictures we can make? I 
>don't want to go backwards, I want to be able to make any image 
>I want. And what really >pisses me off, is that those choices have 
>been taken out of my hands. This evolution is happening in spite of 
>us users, not for us, argh!!!!
> 
>I could not have made this image with the technology touted today.

An eloquent statement.  I had my reasons for switching but I applaud
anyone who sticks with film.  I hope Elwood's predictions will be
true.

Regards,
Clayton


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

"Clayton Jones" wrote:

 big snip
> Hah!  and then you drop it in the sand <g>
 big snip

If only -- usually filters fall on the concrete and either warp the 
screw or chip the glass!  Either way sand would be a blessing.  Know 
how many circular polarizers I've killed?  Ain't sayin'.. but there 
are some filter companies out there that just love ole Butterfingers 
Dan.

Dan

"John Moody" wrote:
> Dan,
> Take your laptop with you…
> I will occasionally shoot with the camera tethered to the laptop; 
if I only
> had one with a decent LCD it would be fine indeed.


Hi John,

Now that sounds almost as cumbersome as haulin' around an 8 x 10 
view camera!  :-)  

I read something somewhere about someone selling a laptop with a 
premanently mounted high resolution camera on its hinge side and a 
tripod mount on its bottom. All set up like a view camera. Looked 
pretty neat but I think the guy had to put a dark cloth over his 
head to see the monitor in the sun.  The more things change the more 
they remain the same... 

Dan

But let's not also forget how much true audiophile CD players have advanced
from their origins - including the development of the medium itself to
higher bit rate recordings etc.  Line up the very best of each and it is now
a very tough (I would say impossible) call on sound quality (in all other
respects the "CD" wins).  Listened to a dCS Verdi LaScala/Verona/Elgar Plus
combination recently?

My point is that the new pushes the old to reinvent itself (unfortunately,
though, typically only for a minority prepared to pay up large in order to
make the investment worthwhile) which in turn keeps pressure on the new to
continually improve.  In this case, I don't see the old techniques
disappearing too quickly - but you can be assured that the price will have
to go up dramatically if they are to survive as niche products.  At the end
of the day, people who love the old will have to dig deep and ask how much
are they willing to pay? 2x the new? 3x 5x 10x? And hope there are enough
others alongside them.  And those that love the new will likewise hope that
these people are prepared to pay, for they are dependent on them to keep the
new innovating...We are lucky to be in a period of rapid change and
innovation.

> From: Elwood Spedden <elwood@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...
> 
> Maybe I'm drawing the analogy too far but, there has
> been more development of analog playback (turntables,
> cartridges etc) since the advent of CD than ever
> before because the people who care supported the
> industry. We realized the "horrible" sound of CD
> compared to quality analog so we continued to buy in
> spite of ever rising prices for such gear. Now in 2005
> vinyl again represents a very substantial market. NOt
> in percentage terms of course because
> non-discriminating i.e. non-educated listeners can buy
> CD for such rock bottom prices so that dominates the
> market statistically. Anyway, my point is that so long
> as there is tremendous advocacy there will be film.
> Fuji, for one, is not going away anytime soon. But our
> choices sadly will be limited.
> 
> Three cheers for the re-emergence of Ilford!!
> 
> Woody Spedden
> 
> --- Martin Carrington <martinc@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> All,
> 
> OT but the situation is analogous to what happened
> when CD's replaced
> analog vinyl LP's - good (rare) LP playback equipment
> far exceeded 
> the sound quality of CD and still does, but LP's
> became marginalized.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Martin
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Scott McLoughlin 
> <scott@a...> wrote:
>> Right on. Nicely said.
>> 
>> Tyler Boley wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Photography tools evolved for decades and decades
> to the point 
> where
>>> we could capture pretty much anything we wanted,
> and this makes 
> the
>>> art of photography more and more compelling. If
> it's there, and 
> sparks
>>> some idea in a brain, a skilled imager can make it
> happen for us 
> to
>>> consider.
>>> Do we really want to so rapidly abandon these hard
> won tools, so 
> the
>>> manufacturers like Agfa drop as fast as we are
> witnessing, and 
> thereby
>>> suddenly limit the actual pictures we can make? I
> don't want to go
>>> backwards, I want to be able to make any image I
> want. And what 
> really
>>> pisses me off, is that those choices have been
> taken out of my 
> hands.
>>> This evolution is happening in spite of us users,
> not for us, 
> argh!!!!
>>> 
>>> I could not have made this image with the
> technology touted today.
>>> Tyler
>>>

Sorry Clayton for the late response, been away from the list for a  
bit.. floods are time consuming. :)

On 27-Jun-05, at 11:16 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:
>
>
>> carolyn frayn wrote:

>> I print a lot of images on plain old arches watercolor paper,
>> have for years.. black and white, tones, color... I love it..
>>
>
> Huh, whadya know...you are full of surprises.  But now that I think
> about it, having seen some of your creative work, it's not surprising.

<G>

>
>
>> ..printed to arches, and then ironed bees wax into them.
>>
>
> How did you do this, and can you describe the result?

I use the same stuff I use on my antiques, it's a pure beeswax and  
carnuba blend that I spread on parchment paper, then flip over onto  
my prints, and iron.. it gives the work a sheen, a patina, but isn't  
always perfect .. which I like. I've just started with encaustics,  
but that's more of a post layering approach where the wax is part of  
the image, not just a coating.


>
>
>
>> Sort of fear saying I use this paper on this list...
>>
>
> Well, you shouldn't have to fear that.  I wish you would post more
> often because you have such a broad range of experience and your
> contributions are always worthwhile.  Lots of people read this forum
> and I'm sure many would benefit from what you have to share.

thanks for that.. but I think some of my work is wonky compared to  
what I read most here are doing. I have no traditional background,  
nor wish to emulate previous processes. :)


>
>
> As for Arches paper, this print is the closest thing to a platinum
> look that I've made.  It is way beyond what I expected.  I have two
> books containing what are supposed to be faithful reproductions of
> platinum prints, by Stieglitz and Laura Gilpin (one of my favorite
> photogs, BTW), and this print bears a strong resemblance to those.  It
> would be nice if others would try it and report their results here.
> And especially if other Eboni/BO users would try it.  Eboni's
> beautiful tones and BO's luminance are what really make this print
> sing.

That's what I thought when I saw some platinums, and salt prints, in  
Barcelona. Two were Stieglitz. I was blown away that some of my work  
had the same 'feel', warmth and seeming sensitivity. I'm referring to  
the output of course. The paper those prints were on was beautiful,  
non white, textured, and of course matte :)

Actually Tyler got me going with Arches watercolor years back when I  
was attempting to output a softer image that didn't do well with  
coated inkjet paper, I was using dyes with it. I've gone on to quad  
pig's, UC's,  transfers, and paints, incorporating the inkjet prints  
on that paper. But some of my favorites are still quad BW to Arches.



>
>
>> If someone wants the ultimate dmax, that's cool.. doesn't
>> mean that it's the be all and end all for everyone's tastes or
>> work... nor the definition of the 'proper' black and white print.
>>
>
> Yes, dmax is important to have when you want it, but it isn't the only
> thing that matters.  I was at the library today reading the
> introduction in a biography of Walker Evans, and how his approach was
> the polar opposite of the "art" approach.  It was a good reminder that
> there are so many ways to do BW.

as with all things :)

Best,
Carolyn

<I use the same stuff I use on my antiques, it's a pure beeswax and
carnuba blend...>

Would that be Briar Wax?

Scott

On 4-Jul-05, at 9:22 PM, scott_now_coming wrote:

> <I use the same stuff I use on my antiques, it's a pure beeswax and
> carnuba blend...>
>
> Would that be Briar Wax?

Clapham's, made in canada...

Carolyn

Carolyn,
I would like to try the Arches paper you use. A dealer on the web 
offers cold press, hot press and Rough. Which do you use for B&W 
printing?
Donald


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn 
<cafrayn@y...> wrote:
> Sorry Clayton for the late response, been away from the list for a  
> bit.. floods are time consuming. :)
> 
> On 27-Jun-05, at 11:16 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> >> carolyn frayn wrote:
> 
> >> I print a lot of images on plain old arches watercolor paper,
> >> have for years.. black and white, tones, color... I love it..
> >>
> >
> > Huh, whadya know...you are full of surprises.  But now that I 
think
> > about it, having seen some of your creative work, it's not 
surprising.
> 
> <G>
> 
> >
> >
> >> ..printed to arches, and then ironed bees wax into them.
> >>
> >
> > How did you do this, and can you describe the result?
> 
> I use the same stuff I use on my antiques, it's a pure beeswax and  
> carnuba blend that I spread on parchment paper, then flip over 
onto  
> my prints, and iron.. it gives the work a sheen, a patina, but 
isn't  
> always perfect .. which I like. I've just started with encaustics,  
> but that's more of a post layering approach where the wax is part 
of  
> the image, not just a coating.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >> Sort of fear saying I use this paper on this list...
> >>
> >
> > Well, you shouldn't have to fear that.  I wish you would post more
> > often because you have such a broad range of experience and your
> > contributions are always worthwhile.  Lots of people read this 
forum
> > and I'm sure many would benefit from what you have to share.
> 
> thanks for that.. but I think some of my work is wonky compared to  
> what I read most here are doing. I have no traditional background,  
> nor wish to emulate previous processes. :)
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > As for Arches paper, this print is the closest thing to a platinum
> > look that I've made.  It is way beyond what I expected.  I have 
two
> > books containing what are supposed to be faithful reproductions of
> > platinum prints, by Stieglitz and Laura Gilpin (one of my favorite
> > photogs, BTW), and this print bears a strong resemblance to 
those.  It
> > would be nice if others would try it and report their results 
here.
> > And especially if other Eboni/BO users would try it.  Eboni's
> > beautiful tones and BO's luminance are what really make this print
> > sing.
> 
> That's what I thought when I saw some platinums, and salt prints, 
in  
> Barcelona. Two were Stieglitz. I was blown away that some of my 
work  
> had the same 'feel', warmth and seeming sensitivity. I'm referring 
to  
> the output of course. The paper those prints were on was 
beautiful,  
> non white, textured, and of course matte :)
> 
> Actually Tyler got me going with Arches watercolor years back when 
I  
> was attempting to output a softer image that didn't do well with  
> coated inkjet paper, I was using dyes with it. I've gone on to 
quad  
> pig's, UC's,  transfers, and paints, incorporating the inkjet 
prints  
> on that paper. But some of my favorites are still quad BW to Arches.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >> If someone wants the ultimate dmax, that's cool.. doesn't
> >> mean that it's the be all and end all for everyone's tastes or
> >> work... nor the definition of the 'proper' black and white print.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, dmax is important to have when you want it, but it isn't the 
only
> > thing that matters.  I was at the library today reading the
> > introduction in a biography of Walker Evans, and how his approach 
was
> > the polar opposite of the "art" approach.  It was a good reminder 
that

> > there are so many ways to do BW.
> 
> as with all things :)
> 
> Best,
> Carolyn

On 5-Jul-05, at 11:46 AM, Donald Frederick wrote:

> Carolyn,
> I would like to try the Arches paper you use. A dealer on the web
> offers cold press, hot press and Rough. Which do you use for B&W
> printing?
>

Hi Donald.. I prefer cold press for most images, 140lb, natural white  
for BW printing. But use hot press, and use bright white on occasion,  
just depends on the image. For inkjet transfers and other stuff I use  
300lb. I haven't used Rough. I buy the large 22x30 sheets and cut it  
down. If you like the deckle edges, tape them gently and they run  
thru the printer fine.

Best,
Carolyn

Dear Carolyn,
Could you say a bit more about the Arches papers and the Epson setting 
you  use in working with them.  I have just received 90lb, 140lb, 
hotpress and coldpress, and 300lb hotpress arches watercolorpapers and 
would benefit from your experience as I set up working on an epson 4000.
Craig


Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> 

> 
> Hi Donald.. I prefer cold press for most images, 140lb, natural white 
> for BW printing. But use hot press, and use bright white on occasion, 
> just depends on the image. For inkjet transfers and other stuff I use 
> 300lb. I haven't used Rough. I buy the large 22x30 sheets and cut it 
> down. If you like the deckle edges, tape them gently and they run 
> thru the printer fine.
> 
> Best,
> Carolyn
>  > On 5-Jul-05, at 11:46 AM, Donald Frederick wrote:
 >
 >  > Carolyn,
 >  > I would like to try the Arches paper you use. A dealer on the web
 >  > offers cold press, hot press and Rough. Which do you use for B&W
 >  > printing?
 >  >