Digital BW, The Print

I'm surprised nobody has commented on this:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb316598.htm

These are the inks formerly referred to as "Futures Inks".  I'd be interested if anyone gets the 
chance to try them.

Cheers

Steve

Article says fade tests results available on web site. I don't see  
them, am I looking in the wrong place?
Mark

On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

> I'm surprised nobody has commented on this:
>
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb316598.htm
>
> These are the inks formerly referred to as "Futures Inks".  I'd be  
> interested if anyone gets the
> chance to try them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve
>
>


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

>These are the inks formerly referred to as "Futures Inks". 
I'd be interested if anyone gets the 
>chance to try them.

I don't think these are the "Futures" inks. Do you have a
reference to that info?

Regards, Walt

http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

Walt

Trust me they are.  These are the inks for which John Edmunds holds the
patents.

Steve

> From: Walt Mucha <wkm@...>

> 
> 
>> These are the inks formerly referred to as "Futures Inks".
> I'd be interested if anyone gets the
>> chance to try them.
> 
> I don't think these are the "Futures" inks. Do you have a
> reference to that info?
> 
> Regards, Walt
> 
> http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

Sorry to be more specific, this is the first OEM licensing by Futures.  Expect more from 
Futures or their successor themselves early in the New Year.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:

>
> Walt
> 
> Trust me they are.  These are the inks for which John Edmunds holds the
> patents.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > From: Walt Mucha <wkm@k...>
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> These are the inks formerly referred to as "Futures Inks".
> > I'd be interested if anyone gets the
> >> chance to try them.
> > 
> > I don't think these are the "Futures" inks. Do you have a
> > reference to that info?
> > 
> > Regards, Walt
> > 
> > http://www.kauaiphotos.biz
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> I'm surprised nobody has commented on this:
> 
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb316598.htm

If you want an honest comment, I found that Ink Village press release
so pathetic that I gave up reading it after two paragraphs, checked
out the web site and was similarly unimpressed.

It starts out "Digital Photography and Fine Art Giclee Print
Professionals are raving about..." and just gets worse from there.
Guys, no one is "raving" about this stuff. They're hardly discussing it.

Encapsulation has nothing to do with "metamorism" (sic). And how many
times can they repeat that misspelling on their web site?

Like Mark Savioa, I tried to find the longevity testing results that
were supposed to be on the web site, and couldn't. But I did find some
gems in the FAQ.

http://www.theprintvillageshop.com/faq.asp

This is in reference to sublimation printing: "The image is actually
as scratch resistant as the first few millimeters of the surface it is
sublimated on since they are impregnated in color, beyond that point
scratches will show the substrate original color". Come on,
sublimation doesn't even penetrate a few micrometers of most surfaces,
let alone "the first few millimeters". Well, maybe if you're doing a
sub print on Sponge Bob Square Pants...

Then the FAQ goes on and on about how some other company holds the
patents on sublimation printing smaller than 42 inches, and tells
people: "A US based Company holds patents relating to the formulation
of dye sublimation ink for use in inkjet printers. ... No distributor,
reseller or sales person has the authority or right to authorize use
of our sublimation inks on printers that have a carriage width under
42 ... US Sublimation forbids using it's licensed products in any way
that is not permissible under the terms of the license ..." (ellipses
mine).

But what's the first thing you see when you click on the sublimation
page, itself?

http://www.theprintvillageshop.com/departments.asp?dept=5

Not the inks, not the transfer paper, not the presses, and not the
substrates. No, the very first thing on the sublimation page is...

"Continuous ink supply systems" for Epson C63, 64, 82, 83, 84, 86,
900, 1270, 1280, 2100, 2200, as well as empty carts for the 4000 and
7600. Reminds me of when I was young and you used to be able to buy an
AR-15, and the seller would go into great detail about the things you
MUST NOT DO to the gun, the parts you must not add, etc.

I agree that Ink Village is not doing themselves any favours.  I can only
hope that Futures watches these reactions closely and doesn't make the same
basic product launch mistakes with their own forthcoming new product range.
One rarely gets a second shot at this stuff.  They would also do well to
take greater control/influence over how licensees launch their products.
Still, if anyone tries the inks I'd be interested in reports.

> From: koloshor <koloshor@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:28:46 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: New inks:  Nanochrome (nano nano, Mork!)
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm surprised nobody has commented on this:
>> 
>> http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/12/prweb316598.htm
> 
> If you want an honest comment, I found that Ink Village press release
> so pathetic that I gave up reading it after two paragraphs, checked
> out the web site and was similarly unimpressed.
> 
> It starts out "Digital Photography and Fine Art Giclee Print
> Professionals are raving about..." and just gets worse from there.
> Guys, no one is "raving" about this stuff. They're hardly discussing it.
> 
> Encapsulation has nothing to do with "metamorism" (sic). And how many
> times can they repeat that misspelling on their web site?
> 
> Like Mark Savioa, I tried to find the longevity testing results that
> were supposed to be on the web site, and couldn't. But I did find some
> gems in the FAQ.
> 
> http://www.theprintvillageshop.com/faq.asp
> 
> This is in reference to sublimation printing: "The image is actually
> as scratch resistant as the first few millimeters of the surface it is
> sublimated on since they are impregnated in color, beyond that point
> scratches will show the substrate original color". Come on,
> sublimation doesn't even penetrate a few micrometers of most surfaces,
> let alone "the first few millimeters". Well, maybe if you're doing a
> sub print on Sponge Bob Square Pants...
> 
> Then the FAQ goes on and on about how some other company holds the
> patents on sublimation printing smaller than 42 inches, and tells
> people: "A US based Company holds patents relating to the formulation
> of dye sublimation ink for use in inkjet printers. ... No distributor,
> reseller or sales person has the authority or right to authorize use
> of our sublimation inks on printers that have a carriage width under
> 42 ... US Sublimation forbids using it's licensed products in any way
> that is not permissible under the terms of the license ..." (ellipses
> mine).
> 
> But what's the first thing you see when you click on the sublimation
> page, itself?
> 
> http://www.theprintvillageshop.com/departments.asp?dept=5
> 
> Not the inks, not the transfer paper, not the presses, and not the
> substrates. No, the very first thing on the sublimation page is...
> 
> "Continuous ink supply systems" for Epson C63, 64, 82, 83, 84, 86,
> 900, 1270, 1280, 2100, 2200, as well as empty carts for the 4000 and
> 7600. Reminds me of when I was young and you used to be able to buy an
> AR-15, and the seller would go into great detail about the things you
> MUST NOT DO to the gun, the parts you must not add, etc.
> 
>

I contacted them, and they sent me the fade testing data straight away.
That's all I'm going to say about it.  If you were truly interested, I would
contact them with your questions.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:41 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: New inks: Nanochrome (nano nano, Mork!)

I agree that Ink Village is not doing themselves any favours.  I can only
hope that Futures watches these reactions closely and doesn't make the same
basic product launch mistakes with their own forthcoming new product range.
One rarely gets a second shot at this stuff.  They would also do well to
take greater control/influence over how licensees launch their products.
Still, if anyone tries the inks I'd be interested in reports.





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