Digital BW, The Print

Hello,

I've read on a forum (sorry can't remember which one) recently about someone, when using refillable carts, was getting some bad nozzle check patterns. Switched to OEM carts and "magic", nozzle check is perfect. Switches back to the NON OEM carts... and bad nozzle check again.

Supposition from this person was that, when the Epson print driver detects and warns us about "not using genuine Epson cartridges", it also "tweaks" the printer into printing badly (a bit) in order to give bad reputation about NON OEM inks and discourage people from using third party carts.

Could they be that evil?

Maybe it's just an urban legend. But I wonder if any one here has heard a similar story. I do not have the computing skills to dive into the driver code to confirm... ;-)

If it might be true, placing OEM chips on NON OEM carts might be a good idea after all. 

Thanks,

Denis

This describes my experience with MIS inks and two R1800s.  The first one had major nozzle check issues with third party ink (and later with OEM ink) and I sent it back.  The second worked okay but had banding issues with the MIS color ink only (fixable with the Epson service adjustment program) and then developed serious nozzle check issues causing me to give up on the MIS ink.  I didn't want to lose a second printer or waste any more time.

I can vouch that the printer has absolutely no idea what I'm putting in it as I refill Epson OEM carts which use OEM chips with third party ink.  I think the problems are due to differences in the inks.

My Epson R220s have had no issues with MIS color and B&W ink at all.  Go figure.

Roger



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "the_des_bois" <thedesbois@...> wrote:

>
> Hello,
> 
> I've read on a forum (sorry can't remember which one) recently about someone, when using refillable carts, was getting some bad nozzle check patterns. Switched to OEM carts and "magic", nozzle check is perfect. Switches back to the NON OEM carts... and bad nozzle check again.
> 
> Supposition from this person was that, when the Epson print driver detects and warns us about "not using genuine Epson cartridges", it also "tweaks" the printer into printing badly (a bit) in order to give bad reputation about NON OEM inks and discourage people from using third party carts.
> 
> Could they be that evil?
> 
> Maybe it's just an urban legend. But I wonder if any one here has heard a similar story. I do not have the computing skills to dive into the driver code to confirm... ;-)
> 
> If it might be true, placing OEM chips on NON OEM carts might be a good idea after all. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Denis
>

well, you can place OEM chips on non OEM carts and buy resetter.

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, the_des_bois <thedesbois@...> wrote:

From: the_des_bois <thedesbois@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 11:47 PM











    
            
            


      
      Hello,



I've read on a forum (sorry can't remember which one) recently about someone, when using refillable carts, was getting some bad nozzle check patterns. Switched to OEM carts and "magic", nozzle check is perfect. Switches back to the NON OEM carts... and bad nozzle check again.



Supposition from this person was that, when the Epson print driver detects and warns us about "not using genuine Epson cartridges", it also "tweaks" the printer into printing badly (a bit) in order to give bad reputation about NON OEM inks and discourage people from using third party carts.



Could they be that evil?



Maybe it's just an urban legend. But I wonder if any one here has heard a similar story. I do not have the computing skills to dive into the driver code to confirm... ;-)



If it might be true, placing OEM chips on NON OEM carts might be a good idea after all. 



Thanks,



Denis




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

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

That is ridiculous. We use third party carts with no issues.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Apr 13, 2009, at 9:26 AM, RobLee wrote:

> Supposition from this person was that, when the Epson print driver  
> detects and warns us about "not using genuine Epson cartridges", it  
> also "tweaks" the printer into printing badly (a bit) in order to  
> give bad reputation about NON OEM inks and discourage people from  
> using third party carts.



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

Maybe not a conspiracy.  I read on some forum recently, I read so many, that all inks are not created equally, and do not work as well as OEM inks in Epson printers.  It has to do with how the inks come out of the nozzles and deflections in the spray pattern.  The person who wrote the posting said it had to do with testing the heads during the manufacturing process, and assigning codes to them, and applying that code to the firmware that runs the printer.  This code makes the printer work properly with that head, with the OEM inks only which have a known quality.  If the consistency of the ink is changed, the head can have deflections which can cause banding.  

This posting may have been on the Epson WF group.

The posting went on to say that the nozzle check with 3rd. party inks will print fine, yet banding will show up in prints.  Also stated that no amount of head cleanings will clear this banding.

I found it to be true with my Epson 9500.  Prints great with OEM inks, but when I tried the MIS ink, I had micro-banding, and strange patterns in the dark smooth toned areas of my prints.  Go back to the OEM and everything is fine again.  NUTZ!  I wish it weren't so, but it sure seems to be.

As a last note, this posting went on to say that this was the reason 
Epson wants to keep control of their printer head sales.  They did not want to release the information on how to correct for this code on their printers and give other manufactures their secrets.

Ben

Ben, I think that is has far more to do with specific printers, not by model
number, but by owner. How they print, what they print on, the environment
that the printer is in, and the type of ink involved. 

 

Did the user do anything to help make sure that the third party ink had a
good chance of working? Cleaned the printer of Epson ink prior to use? Shake
the carts, etc. You can set yourself up for success or failure and too many
are willing to buy into the fear. 

 

Ben, It might be that the user failed to run a complete nozzle check pattern
and reset the printer to operate properly with the new inks. Printers are
not, especially the wide format machines, just a simple plug and play
device. They take work and practice to make them work properly with OEM or
third party.  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

www.ericneilsenphotography.com

 

SKYPE   ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
benjschneider2
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:42 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?

 






Maybe not a conspiracy. I read on some forum recently, I read so many, that
all inks are not created equally, and do not work as well as OEM inks in
Epson printers. It has to do with how the inks come out of the nozzles and
deflections in the spray pattern. The person who wrote the posting said it
had to do with testing the heads during the manufacturing process, and
assigning codes to them, and applying that code to the firmware that runs
the printer. This code makes the printer work properly with that head, with
the OEM inks only which have a known quality. If the consistency of the ink
is changed, the head can have deflections which can cause banding. 

This posting may have been on the Epson WF group.

The posting went on to say that the nozzle check with 3rd. party inks will
print fine, yet banding will show up in prints. Also stated that no amount
of head cleanings will clear this banding.

I found it to be true with my Epson 9500. Prints great with OEM inks, but
when I tried the MIS ink, I had micro-banding, and strange patterns in the
dark smooth toned areas of my prints. Go back to the OEM and everything is
fine again. NUTZ! I wish it weren't so, but it sure seems to be.

As a last note, this posting went on to say that this was the reason 
Epson wants to keep control of their printer head sales. They did not want
to release the information on how to correct for this code on their printers
and give other manufactures their secrets.

Ben





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

wow!
my R1800 works just fine with 3rd party inks.

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, benjschneider2 <benjschneider2@...> wrote:

From: benjschneider2 <benjschneider2@...>
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 9:41 AM











    
            
            


      
      Maybe not a conspiracy.  I read on some forum recently, I read so many, that all inks are not created equally, and do not work as well as OEM inks in Epson printers.  It has to do with how the inks come out of the nozzles and deflections in the spray pattern.  The person who wrote the posting said it had to do with testing the heads during the manufacturing process, and assigning codes to them, and applying that code to the firmware that runs the printer.  This code makes the printer work properly with that head, with the OEM inks only which have a known quality.  If the consistency of the ink is changed, the head can have deflections which can cause banding.  



This posting may have been on the Epson WF group.



The posting went on to say that the nozzle check with 3rd. party inks will print fine, yet banding will show up in prints.  Also stated that no amount of head cleanings will clear this banding.



I found it to be true with my Epson 9500.  Prints great with OEM inks, but when I tried the MIS ink, I had micro-banding, and strange patterns in the dark smooth toned areas of my prints.  Go back to the OEM and everything is fine again.  NUTZ!  I wish it weren't so, but it sure seems to be.



As a last note, this posting went on to say that this was the reason 

Epson wants to keep control of their printer head sales.  They did not want to release the information on how to correct for this code on their printers and give other manufactures their secrets.



Ben




 

      

    
    
	
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

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

It has nothing to do with code information release. The topic you were referring to was adjustment of the individual nozzle output. Epson devised (and patented) a method of testing and control during manufacturing of the heads that allowed them to make corrections for variances between nozzles in the heads. It was done to permit a better pass rate on their factory line output. Otherwise they were having to discard as rejects a substantial part of the production, which left the heads too costly to make.

I don't know the reason they refuse sales of the heads for the Pro model machines but it isn't the "codes". I have suspicions about their reasons though. It's more likely aimed at preserving service work. Paul talked a few posts ago about his FTC days. I once worked for a large well known company who ran afoul of the FTC some years back over just such issues. It ended up in a consent decree that forced them to sell parts directly to anyone with one of their products that needed it. It used to be illegal to force customers to use only "factory authorized" service and to refuse sale of parts to legitimate owners.

Regards,
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "benjschneider2" <benjschneider2@...> wrote:

> 
> As a last note, this posting went on to say that this was the reason 
> Epson wants to keep control of their printer head sales.  They did not want to release the information on how to correct for this code on their printers and give other manufactures their secrets.
> 
> Ben
>

I think it was described a while ago here. The small companies can't afford the battery of lawyers and attorney fees to fight such a situation, and the big companies all want to do the same thing in control of their piece of the pie. So there you go. It's much easier to play by their rules of course, and keep your mouth shut, but not nearly as fun.

john

Ben, this is why manufacturers of the highest quality third party inks 
go to great lengths to match the manufacturer's ink viscosities. If 
that's done, then no further calibration or head angles and such is 
needed beyond the normal tasks of setting up to print with 
manufacturer's inks like establishing ink restrictions, linearization, 
ink limits and profiling.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "benjschneider2"

Maybe not a conspiracy.  I read on some forum recently, I read so many, 
that all inks are not created equally, and do not work as well as OEM 
inks in Epson printers.  It has to do with how the inks come out of the 
nozzles and deflections in the spray pattern.  The person who wrote the 
posting said it had to do with testing the heads during the 
manufacturing process, and assigning codes to them, and applying that 
code to the firmware that runs the printer.  This code makes the printer 
work properly with that head, with the OEM inks only which have a known 
quality.  If the consistency of the ink is changed, the head can have 
deflections which can cause banding.

This posting may have been on the Epson WF group.

The posting went on to say that the nozzle check with 3rd. party inks 
will print fine, yet banding will show up in prints.  Also stated that 
no amount of head cleanings will clear this banding.

I found it to be true with my Epson 9500.  Prints great with OEM inks, 
but when I tried the MIS ink, I had micro-banding, and strange patterns 
in the dark smooth toned areas of my prints.  Go back to the OEM and 
everything is fine again.  NUTZ!  I wish it weren't so, but it sure 
seems to be.

As a last note, this posting went on to say that this was the reason
Epson wants to keep control of their printer head sales.  They did not 
want to release the information on how to correct for this code on their 
printers and give other manufactures their secrets.

Mark,  What 3rd party carts are you using.  I need to pruchase three 7800 cartirdges and would like to try a "good" product other than the exspensive Epson carts.
 
Thanks,
 
Jim Kaminsky

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

--
Phil

---- john castronovo <jc@...> wrote: 

> Ben, this is why manufacturers of the highest quality third party inks 
> go to great lengths to match the manufacturer's ink viscosities. If 
> that's done, then no further calibration or head angles and such is 
> needed beyond the normal tasks of setting up to print with 
> manufacturer's inks like establishing ink restrictions, linearization, 
> ink limits and profiling.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "benjschneider2"
> 
> Maybe not a conspiracy.  I read on some forum recently, I read so many, 
> that all inks are not created equally, and do not work as well as OEM 
> inks in Epson printers.  It has to do with how the inks come out of the 
> nozzles and deflections in the spray pattern.  The person who wrote the 
> posting said it had to do with testing the heads during the 
> manufacturing process, and assigning codes to them, and applying that 
> code to the firmware that runs the printer.  This code makes the printer 
> work properly with that head, with the OEM inks only which have a known 
> quality.  If the consistency of the ink is changed, the head can have 
> deflections which can cause banding.
> 
> This posting may have been on the Epson WF group.
> 
> The posting went on to say that the nozzle check with 3rd. party inks 
> will print fine, yet banding will show up in prints.  Also stated that 
> no amount of head cleanings will clear this banding.
> 
> I found it to be true with my Epson 9500.  Prints great with OEM inks, 
> but when I tried the MIS ink, I had micro-banding, and strange patterns 
> in the dark smooth toned areas of my prints.  Go back to the OEM and 
> everything is fine again.  NUTZ!  I wish it weren't so, but it sure 
> seems to be.
> 
> As a last note, this posting went on to say that this was the reason
> Epson wants to keep control of their printer head sales.  They did not 
> want to release the information on how to correct for this code on their 
> printers and give other manufactures their secrets.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>

I buy MIS carts and fill them with Piezotone inks.

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On Apr 14, 2009, at 10:07 AM, James kaminsky wrote:

> Mark,  What 3rd party carts are you using.  I need to pruchase  
> three 7800 cartirdges and would like to try a "good" product other  
> than the exspensive Epson carts.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Kaminsky
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Same here. Haven't had any problems yet.

john

k@...> wrote:

>
> I buy MIS carts and fill them with Piezotone inks.
> 
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>

Now, that sounds like a conspiracy  :  )

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 4/14/2009 at 6:08 PM john dean wrote:

>Same here. Haven't had any problems yet.
>
>john
>
>k@...> wrote:
>>
>> I buy MIS carts and fill them with Piezotone inks.
>> 
>> Mark
>> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
>>

We just call it makeshift underground technology.

j



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver" <garww@...> wrote:

>
> Now, that sounds like a conspiracy  :  )
> 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> 
> On 4/14/2009 at 6:08 PM john dean wrote:
> 
> >Same here. Haven't had any problems yet.
> >
> >john
> >
> >k@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> I buy MIS carts and fill them with Piezotone inks.
> >> 
> >> Mark
> >> http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> >>
>

It's funny how throughout history the only truly massive spurts of  
innovation came coupled with a culture of openness, sharing, and a  
general lack of monetary and business thought. Tesla and electricity,  
the internet, etc.

If only this was true in the printing world. We would have epson 11880- 
type heads in Roland-quality printers with ink-systems derived from  
the medical industry and onboard linux boxes (for the controllers)  
running open-source but with millions of public dollars going to  
advanced head technology and LUT tuning.

Imagine if Epson screening was open-source. Imagine how far that would  
propel the print industry if we widened the thinking from 20 engineers  
at Epson Inc. to 20,000.

Imagine if we had a hardware product like the Eric Blossom's boards  
for software-defined GNU radio with the HIGHEST quality open source  
driver in the world that could print any width we built it and take  
any paper we threw at it. (And imaging if it was a flat-table printer,  
no paper bending, just suction under the print head.)

Its time for some brilliant mechanical/robotic engineers to step up  
and build the starting blocks of such a system. If we did this, the  
printing world would change for the better and forever. Open source  
modularized hardware is were we must head. We have been stalled at the  
margins technically for years (in this country) in a controlled  
upgrade pattern while big companies with lots of patents suck our  
wallets dry.

It started in the 80s with refrigerators and now it's everywhere. All  
epson has to do each year is add a channel and some nozzles, flip  
their magenta ink from more-magenta to more-red and back, mess with  
their cartridge pressure, and call it "technically improved." We all  
just sprint to get the new printer because our old ones have crappy  
issues that epson surely new about (3800 rollers, 9600 inkline  
pressure, o-rings, CF motor errors, vacuum clogs, etc) but decided to  
only fix one upgrade at a time in order to maximize profit and  
oversell the public.

Apple recently TOOK OUT the firewire port from the new MacBooks  
because they realized you could do Final Cut pro on a cheap MacBook  
just as well as on the MacBook pros. While this was an obvious thing,  
the behind the scenes "planned degrading" is much larger. We must  
break that business cycle. It should be illegal and is hurting our  
economy. If Cone can re-engineer color ink for epsons with a few  
chemists and some hutzpa to the point where we don't even need to re- 
profile our papers, Epson can surely build a printer that does not  
clog . . . . ever. It's in the hardware. Not the ink.

Walker

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

Well said, Walker.



Bill Kennedy

-----Original Message-----
From: Walker Blackwell <forums@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?


























    

            
            


      
      
It's funny how throughout history the only truly massive spurts of  

innovation came coupled with a culture of openness, sharing, and a  

general lack of monetary and business thought. Tesla and electricity,  

the internet, etc.



If only this was true in the printing world. We would have epson 11880- 

type heads in Roland-quality printers with ink-systems derived from  

the medical industry and onboard linux boxes (for the controllers)  

running open-source but with millions of public dollars going to  

advanced head technology and LUT tuning.



Imagine if Epson screening was open-source. Imagine how far that would  

propel the print industry if we widened the thinking from 20 engineers  

at Epson Inc. to 20,000.



Imagine if we had a hardware product like the Eric Blossom's boards  

for software-defined GNU radio with the HIGHEST quality open source  

driver in the world that could print any width we built it and take  

any paper we threw at it. (And imaging if it was a flat-table printer,  

no paper bending, just suction under the
 print head.)



Its time for some brilliant mechanical/robotic engineers to step up  

and build the starting blocks of such a system. If we did this, the  

printing world would change for the better and forever. Open source  

modularized hardware is were we must head. We have been stalled at the  

margins technically for years (in this country) in a controlled  

upgrade pattern while big companies with lots of patents suck our  

wallets dry.



It started in the 80s with refrigerators and now it's everywhere. All  

epson has to do each year is add a channel and some nozzles, flip  

their magenta ink from more-magenta to more-red and back, mess with  

their cartridge pressure, and call it "technically improved." We all  

just sprint to get the new printer because our old ones have crappy  

issues that epson surely new about (3800 rollers, 9600 inkline  

pressure, o-rings, CF motor errors, vacuum clogs, etc) but decided to  

only fix one upgrade at a time in order to maximize profit and  

oversell the public.



Apple recently TOOK OUT the firewire port from the new MacBooks  

because they realized you could do Final Cut pro on a cheap MacBook  

just as well as on the MacBook pros. While this was an obvious thing,  

the behind the scenes "planned degrading" is much larger. We must  

break that business cycle. It should be illegal and is hurting our  

economy. If Cone can re-engineer color ink for
 epsons with a few  

chemists and some hutzpa to the point where we don't even need to re- 

profile our papers, Epson can surely build a printer that does not  

clog . . . . ever. It's in the hardware. Not the ink.



Walker



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





 

    
  

    
    


    
    
    
    


    


    
    
    
    
    


 






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

Yes. That is the smartest thing anyone has said around here in a long time Walker.

And it does hurt the entire economy. Obama said it today in his speech at Geogetown Univ. Essentially, we have simply got to go back to making quality things in this world again and stop only rewarding the people who juggle phony numbers at investment institutions. We need both, sure, but what we don't need is 40% of the entire GDP devoted to marketing, investment scams and sales tricks. We are like a bunch of rats in a cage running in circles half the time trying just to keep up with what isn't even important in the firs place.

john





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@... wrote:

>
> Well said, Walker.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Kennedy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walker Blackwell <forums@...>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 3:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
>             
>             
> 
> 
>       
>       
> It's funny how throughout history the only truly massive spurts of  
> 
> innovation came coupled with a culture of openness, sharing, and a  
> 
> general lack of monetary and business thought. Tesla and electricity,  
> 
> the internet, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> If only this was true in the printing world. We would have epson 11880- 
> 
> type heads in Roland-quality printers with ink-systems derived from  
> 
> the medical industry and onboard linux boxes (for the controllers)  
> 
> running open-source but with millions of public dollars going to  
> 
> advanced head technology and LUT tuning.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if Epson screening was open-source. Imagine how far that would  
> 
> propel the print industry if we widened the thinking from 20 engineers  
> 
> at Epson Inc. to 20,000.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if we had a hardware product like the Eric Blossom's boards  
> 
> for software-defined GNU radio with the HIGHEST quality open source  
> 
> driver in the world that could print any width we built it and take  
> 
> any paper we threw at it. (And imaging if it was a flat-table printer,  
> 
> no paper bending, just suction under the
>  print head.)
> 
> 
> 
> Its time for some brilliant mechanical/robotic engineers to step up  
> 
> and build the starting blocks of such a system. If we did this, the  
> 
> printing world would change for the better and forever. Open source  
> 
> modularized hardware is were we must head. We have been stalled at the  
> 
> margins technically for years (in this country) in a controlled  
> 
> upgrade pattern while big companies with lots of patents suck our  
> 
> wallets dry.
> 
> 
> 
> It started in the 80s with refrigerators and now it's everywhere. All  
> 
> epson has to do each year is add a channel and some nozzles, flip  
> 
> their magenta ink from more-magenta to more-red and back, mess with  
> 
> their cartridge pressure, and call it "technically improved." We all  
> 
> just sprint to get the new printer because our old ones have crappy  
> 
> issues that epson surely new about (3800 rollers, 9600 inkline  
> 
> pressure, o-rings, CF motor errors, vacuum clogs, etc) but decided to  
> 
> only fix one upgrade at a time in order to maximize profit and  
> 
> oversell the public.
> 
> 
> 
> Apple recently TOOK OUT the firewire port from the new MacBooks  
> 
> because they realized you could do Final Cut pro on a cheap MacBook  
> 
> just as well as on the MacBook pros. While this was an obvious thing,  
> 
> the behind the scenes "planned degrading" is much larger. We must  
> 
> break that business cycle. It should be illegal and is hurting our  
> 
> economy. If Cone can re-engineer color ink for
>  epsons with a few  
> 
> chemists and some hutzpa to the point where we don't even need to re- 
> 
> profile our papers, Epson can surely build a printer that does not  
> 
> clog . . . . ever. It's in the hardware. Not the ink.
> 
> 
> 
> Walker
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>     
>   
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
>     
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Walker Blackwell wrote:

> Its time for some brilliant mechanical/robotic engineers to step up  
> and build the starting blocks of such a system. If we did this, the  
> printing world would change for the better and forever. Open source  
> modularized hardware is were we must head. We have been stalled at the  
> margins technically for years (in this country) in a controlled  
> upgrade pattern while big companies with lots of patents suck our  
> wallets dry.
> 
> It started in the 80s with refrigerators and now it's everywhere. All  
> epson has to do each year is add a channel and some nozzles, flip  
> their magenta ink from more-magenta to more-red and back, mess with  
> their cartridge pressure, and call it "technically improved." We all  
> just sprint to get the new printer because our old ones have crappy  
> issues that epson surely new about (3800 rollers, 9600 inkline  
> pressure, o-rings, CF motor errors, vacuum clogs, etc) but decided to  
> only fix one upgrade at a time in order to maximize profit and  
> oversell the public.

There's no objection to open source solutions here but if the change 
will happen as fast as Linux, BSD, changed the world of OS systems then 
I prefer what some healthy competition in the wide format printer's 
world did since the summer of 2006.

If we sketch what open source software development did for photo 
printing in the last 15 years then it isn't a rosy picture. It must be 
possible now (1-2 years) to print from Gimp with the CM extension, 
running on Ubuntu, with Gutenprint (16 bits) as the driver on an Epson 
9800, 9880, 11880. The 9900 not supported yet. Open source here 
following the dominant wide format supplier.  Epson had CM on the 3000, 
12 years ago.  No recent wide formats from the competition are 
supported. Similar support structure for desktops. For open source 
profile creation there are LCMS and Argyll, the last possibly with the 
best color engine available on this planet but hardly in a shape that 
makes it usable for the average print shop owner. It became available in 
bits and parts in the last two years,.

QTR is a godsend (not playing down Roy's role here :-) for B&W printing 
so may have distorted the perspective on "open" source software for this 
list.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

If you think Tesla isn't motivated by monetary gain or led by business  
thought you are greatly mistaken.  The thrill of and competition for  
profit (be it monetary or the reduction of want in other forms) drives  
most innovation.  If everyone is so dissatisfied with what's on offer,  
pull out your pencils, design, produce and sell - economically - a  
better product. Others have before you.  Maybe now is your time.


On 14 Apr 2009, at 21:52, Walker Blackwell wrote:

>
>
> It's funny how throughout history the only truly massive spurts of
> innovation came coupled with a culture of openness, sharing, and a
> general lack of monetary and business thought. Tesla and electricity,
> the internet, etc.
>



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

Steve Kale schreef:


> The thrill of and competition for  
> profit (be it monetary or the reduction of want in other forms) drives  
> most innovation.  If everyone is so dissatisfied with what's on offer,  
> pull out your pencils, design, produce and sell - economically - a  
> better product. 

There's another approach somewhere in between. Bring your ideas forward
on the internet, discuss them, even go to the stage of design and let
others take the risk of fabricating and marketing the product. If good
it will be picked up by an entrepreneur soon. It will be patented by him
and you will not earn a penny when it becomes a success but on the other
hand it doesn't cost a fortune when it fails. Mankind will benefit in
more than one way. It requires some altruism, spare time and a not too
big ego. There's a trail of software and hardware solutions left after some
threads on forums like this. Open source avant la lettre.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

True. But go ahead and design it - and cost it.  Contact a potential  
manufacturer. Too often people just whine about what someone else  
isn't doing without the vaguest idea of what it would cost to bring  
their wants to market in a manner that makes economic sense to the  
producer and marketer (even ex the design cost).  If you really think  
there's an opportunity, why not put some of the below into practice?


On 15 Apr 2009, at 10:49, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>
>
> Steve Kale schreef:
>
> > The thrill of and competition for
> > profit (be it monetary or the reduction of want in other forms)  
> drives
> > most innovation. If everyone is so dissatisfied with what's on  
> offer,
> > pull out your pencils, design, produce and sell - economically - a
> > better product.
>
> There's another approach somewhere in between. Bring your ideas  
> forward
> on the internet, discuss them, even go to the stage of design and let
> others take the risk of fabricating and marketing the product. If good
> it will be picked up by an entrepreneur soon. It will be patented by  
> him
> and you will not earn a penny when it becomes a success but on the  
> other
> hand it doesn't cost a fortune when it fails. Mankind will benefit in
> more than one way. It requires some altruism, spare time and a not too
> big ego. There's a trail of software and hardware solutions left  
> after some
> threads on forums like this. Open source avant la lettre.
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
>
> New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
>



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

The reply:

"If you think Tesla isn't motivated by monetary gain or led by business
thought you are greatly mistaken."

I agree. He was motivated to "be the best" and was very competitive.  
But he was also not a classic business man in the sense that his over- 
arching goal was to "let people live a little easier" and not to make  
money at cost of innovation. That is something he tried to achieve his  
whole life and it cost him monetarily (to much, I would argue.) He was  
broke at the end of his life. By no means are all corporate entities  
bad or anti-innovation. What I am saying is, there seems to be a  
coalescing of patent-protectionism in the hands of a few  
multinationals that is hampering our little corner of the art world. I  
want to change that, and I think a gazillion other innovations could  
come out of that.

In regards to open source printing software, I also agree. It hasn't  
worked for us artists. But we can't look at a possible open-source  
printer platform through the lens of the failures in open-source  
drivers.  Why? Because most of them are trying to come up with general  
printing approaches for hundreds of different proprietary printers,  
dithers, inks, papers, and OSs. And all of them are trying to do color  
printing. QTR is different because it is based solely on Epson inkjet,  
it is ONLY bw, and was built for that soul purpose. Therefore, it had  
(has) enough momentum to go forward. Plus, the person who created it  
is an artist looking for quality. The same is not true for many in the  
CUPs/Guetenprint communities. They are simply trying to print, not  
print well. In that regard, they have succeeded quite well.

And the newer epson printers don't have opensource support yet because  
Epson is totally cagy about it's new printer internals. You saw how  
protectionist they are. They won't even let Ergosoft build k7 support  
for the new printers even though Ergosoft BUYS the dither and support  
license from them. They have crazy inkcart protection in the 9900s  
too. In the end, they are a company that sells ink.

An open-source printer chassis, stepping drivers, firmware, and  
printhead system, etc, would lay the ground-work for innovation.  
Because we would start from scratch, we would be able to keep the  
quality controls on the whole way. Not so with open-source print  
spoolers for consumer printers. They are coming in too late in the  
game to make something truly perfect.

Regarding the competition of late. I agree that it has been healthy.  
HP (and so some extent Canon) have come to the table and in no way  
should their systems not continue to be valid. But we need a 4th (or  
5th) system out there that continually pushes the boundaries of the  
printing world and bullwhips the companies into creating pro machines  
that actually work really well.

Of late, Epson has done some remarkable innovations. They have  
actually calibrated their internal LUTs correctly, and they have  
achieved a very high nozzle density. But besides that, they have  
loaded their machines with so much crufty sensor tech that the chances  
of one of them malfunctioning or coming in conflict with paper dust  
and ink spillage is inevitable. This is happening throughout the pro  
printing industry. We need a system that is beautifully engineered,  
simple, manual, and of the highest quality. In other words, we need  
Hasselblad 500C printers. I don't see these printer companies going in  
that direction at all.

Of course such a system would be costly in materials. BUT the costs  
are starting to go down. Opensource PCB routers are starting to  
blossom, virtualized circuit boards are possible with todays fast  
desktop computers, and generalized input-output boards are already on  
the market. Stepping motors and drive chassis are plentiful in the  
university robotics world, but print heads are the sticky part. If we  
had the materials, the plan, the software, and hardware part, we took  
out the profit motive and installed quality motive, I do believe cost  
would come to a reasonable place.

We need a master plan /  design  / and API system. Then we leave it to  
the thousands of people with time, technique, and knowledge who are  
willing to take it from there. That is how open-source works. There is  
no point in saying it won't work until you do it.

Of course all of this would be a grand challenge and very costly. It  
would take millions in grant money, would most likely need to involve  
universities like MIT and Stanford. But imagine the end result. High  
quality print tech that is fully documented from start to finish,  
fully customizable, etc. This would go well beyond the art world. It  
would get into the medical industry, into ever-more complex PCB  
routing, into who knows where.

This stuff is happening in Radio,transportation, etc. Why not printers?

Walker


On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:53 AM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>
>
> Walker Blackwell wrote:
>
> > Its time for some brilliant mechanical/robotic engineers to step up
> > and build the starting blocks of such a system. If we did this, the
> > printing world would change for the better and forever. Open source
> > modularized hardware is were we must head. We have been stalled at  
> the
> > margins technically for years (in this country) in a controlled
> > upgrade pattern while big companies with lots of patents suck our
> > wallets dry.
> >
> > It started in the 80s with refrigerators and now it's everywhere.  
> All
> > epson has to do each year is add a channel and some nozzles, flip
> > their magenta ink from more-magenta to more-red and back, mess with
> > their cartridge pressure, and call it "technically improved." We all
> > just sprint to get the new printer because our old ones have crappy
> > issues that epson surely new about (3800 rollers, 9600 inkline
> > pressure, o-rings, CF motor errors, vacuum clogs, etc) but decided  
> to
> > only fix one upgrade at a time in order to maximize profit and
> > oversell the public.
>
> There's no objection to open source solutions here but if the change
> will happen as fast as Linux, BSD, changed the world of OS systems  
> then
> I prefer what some healthy competition in the wide format printer's
> world did since the summer of 2006.
>
> If we sketch what open source software development did for photo
> printing in the last 15 years then it isn't a rosy picture. It must be
> possible now (1-2 years) to print from Gimp with the CM extension,
> running on Ubuntu, with Gutenprint (16 bits) as the driver on an Epson
> 9800, 9880, 11880. The 9900 not supported yet. Open source here
> following the dominant wide format supplier. Epson had CM on the 3000,
> 12 years ago. No recent wide formats from the competition are
> supported. Similar support structure for desktops. For open source
> profile creation there are LCMS and Argyll, the last possibly with the
> best color engine available on this planet but hardly in a shape that
> makes it usable for the average print shop owner. It became  
> available in
> bits and parts in the last two years,.
>
> QTR is a godsend (not playing down Roy's role here :-) for B&W  
> printing
> so may have distorted the perspective on "open" source software for  
> this
> list.
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
>
> New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
>
> | Dinkla Grafische Techniek |
> | www.pigment-print.com |
> | ( unvollendet ) |
>
> 

Walker Blackwell
802.735.0621
www.walkerblackwell.com
aim: greendirtblues





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

I am not wining. I have used pro inkjet printers and color management  
for 7 years now and have been in the digital imaging world since  
Photoshop v2.5. I know what amazing things they are and because of  
that, I can see where they could be much better.

I am a fine art print-maker. I have design ideas and wants for  
printers, but in no way do I have the skill to flesh it all out  
(alone) in a practical manner. I may be able to take a printer apart  
and put it back together again, but I am sure as hell not a mechanical  
engineer.

So I am contributing ideas and thoughts on this forum and people are  
giving good feedback. Fleshing out a printer design requires at least  
10 people with very good knowledge of electronics, piezo/electrical  
systems, 3d economy of space, and modular reconfigurable design as  
well as a unique knowledge of the needs and desire of the pro printing  
world.

It would require intense discussion, requests for comment periods, and  
revisions. But yeah, I think that would be a start, eh?

In regards to an entrepreneur snapping up the ideas and patenting  
them, that is where open-source licenses come in. It means, anybody  
who uses the tech must publish their modifications and also can't  
create patents over the tech as published. If they modify the tech in  
such a way as to create a totally new creation, then maybe a patent is  
legit. Apple is an example of that. They started with the Mach kernel,  
but modified it internally to the point where it was totally original.

In regards to manufacturing, I think creating printers out of existing  
parts from multiple manufacturers is the way to go. There are many  
examples of this working successfully on a small-scale especially in  
the camera world, bike world, etc. That is where the profit can lie  
especially with the people who really love doing that kind of work.

Putting all your eggs in the hands of one manufacturer is certain  
death for open-source hardware.

Walker


On Apr 15, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

>
>
> True. But go ahead and design it - and cost it. Contact a potential
> manufacturer.
>
> Too often people just whine about what someone else
> isn't doing without the vaguest idea of what it would cost to bring
> their wants to market in a manner that makes economic sense to the
> producer and marketer (even ex the design cost). If you really think
> there's an opportunity, why not put some of the below into practice?
>
> On 15 Apr 2009, at 10:49, Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Steve Kale schreef:
> >
> > > The thrill of and competition for
> > > profit (be it monetary or the reduction of want in other forms)
> > drives
> > > most innovation. If everyone is so dissatisfied with what's on
> > offer,
> > > pull out your pencils, design, produce and sell - economically - a
> > > better product.
> >
> > There's another approach somewhere in between. Bring your ideas
> > forward
> > on the internet, discuss them, even go to the stage of design and  
> let
> > others take the risk of fabricating and marketing the product. If  
> good
> > it will be picked up by an entrepreneur soon. It will be patented by
> > him
> > and you will not earn a penny when it becomes a success but on the
> > other
> > hand it doesn't cost a fortune when it fails. Mankind will benefit  
> in
> > more than one way. It requires some altruism, spare time and a not  
> too
> > big ego. There's a trail of software and hardware solutions left
> > after some
> > threads on forums like this. Open source avant la lettre.
> >
> > --
> > Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
> >
> > New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 

Walker Blackwell
802.735.0621
www.walkerblackwell.com
aim: greendirtblues





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

Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:

> ...
 
> In regards to an entrepreneur snapping up the ideas and 
> patenting  them, that is where open-source licenses come in. 
> It means, anybody who uses the tech must publish their 
> modifications and also can't create patents over the tech 
> as published...

I'm not sure this relates, but I was warned by someone who purports to be a serious observer that the net effect of my and similar comments on this forum was to cause the large companies to quickly file patents on the ideas and use those patents to stop competition.  I don't know enough about patents to know if this is true.  It seems like just the opposite of what most of us are interested in -- an open discussion of ideas.  I suspect the person making the claims to me was doing so as part of a pitch to get me to join his firm and stop publishing ideas.  No thanks.

...
> In regards to manufacturing, I think creating printers out 
> of existing parts from multiple manufacturers is the way to go.

A firm tried to get me involved in such a plan, and I concluded the costs could not be held down to the point where the size of the market would support the venture.  Even with wide format printers, there are economies of scale that a small niche player will have trouble competing with.  Among other things, the costs of the parts would be much more than the internal costs to the OEM.  But, my conclusions were not based on a whole lot of research, so I would not put too much weight on them.  And, of course, if Epson succeeds in stopping us from using their printers with third party inks, such a venture might then look like a more viable option.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I think you are right vis a vis the cost of parts. Another model might  
be non-profit hardware supported by the open-source community but  
manufactured and sold along the corporate structure. This takes out a  
lot of R and D costs, keeps stuff crowdsourced / tested / out-there,  
but could leverage the huge manufacturing ladders that exist. Ubuntu- 
style.

A real study of available parts should be done though. There are a lot  
of stepping motors out there that are 1/10th the price there were in  
2001. Circuit boards are almost DYI (not to mention virtual hardware).

Maybe I'm just totally over-optimistic about this. Seems like it  
should be done though . . .

Regarding protective patents, you're probably right about that, huh.  
Just like Exxon buying the patents to clear window insulation film in  
the 1970s only to sit on them for 20 years without doing a thing. It's  
funny that we on this forum and other print/printer forums come up  
with the ideas that large companies use for patents. We need to change  
that. Find some form of legal idea structure so things discussed here  
stay open-source and available to anyone.

A bare-bones print engine might be cost effective if we didn't have  
ubber sensor tech like auto nozzle electrified ink sensors, and auto  
paper align sensors, and auto load sensors, and on and on and on. If  
we had a mechanic way to align the paper and stop during a paper-jam,  
etc, it would be a start. Imagine that. Manual printers of the highest  
quality for people who would normally tape over the paper-out sensors  
and jam pen in front-door switch anyway. Who needs protected ink cart  
empty circuits and the various electrical supplies that go with them?  
Who  needs a freaking key-code protected printhead lock?

Ahh well.

Walker


On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:46 PM, pr_roark wrote:

>
>
> Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > In regards to an entrepreneur snapping up the ideas and
> > patenting them, that is where open-source licenses come in.
> > It means, anybody who uses the tech must publish their
> > modifications and also can't create patents over the tech
> > as published...
>
> I'm not sure this relates, but I was warned by someone who purports  
> to be a serious observer that the net effect of my and similar  
> comments on this forum was to cause the large companies to quickly  
> file patents on the ideas and use those patents to stop competition.  
> I don't know enough about patents to know if this is true. It seems  
> like just the opposite of what most of us are interested in -- an  
> open discussion of ideas. I suspect the person making the claims to  
> me was doing so as part of a pitch to get me to join his firm and  
> stop publishing ideas. No thanks.
>
> ...
> > In regards to manufacturing, I think creating printers out
> > of existing parts from multiple manufacturers is the way to go.
>
> A firm tried to get me involved in such a plan, and I concluded the  
> costs could not be held down to the point where the size of the  
> market would support the venture. Even with wide format printers,  
> there are economies of scale that a small niche player will have  
> trouble competing with. Among other things, the costs of the parts  
> would be much more than the internal costs to the OEM. But, my  
> conclusions were not based on a whole lot of research, so I would  
> not put too much weight on them. And, of course, if Epson succeeds  
> in stopping us from using their printers with third party inks, such  
> a venture might then look like a more viable option.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
> 

Walker Blackwell
802.735.0621
www.walkerblackwell.com
aim: greendirtblues





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

That sounds about right Paul.

You bet the big three listen to these kind of forums now and just hate to death people like Paul and Cone, and Roy, and Walker who bother to open the hood, shine a flashlight in there and take the thing apart to see how it works then share what they find out globally. The web is their worst nightmare in probably more respects that it is a source of advertising. 

This kinds of reminds me of "what ever happened to the electric car". People say, "oh if there was a need for it we would already have it right", "its a free market, go ahead and build it". Right. There is a need, there are a million needs but to turn around an entire industrial culture isn't as simple as having a real need. It's very politically complicated.

My brother is a phd and 30 year veteran of micro biology and immunology research. It used to be that you could keep things very close to the vest and patent everything. Now the web and mandatory sharing of data has broken a lot of that wide open. Scientists can't hide anymore if they really want to progress because sharing info IS how they get ahead now. Open information is critical for survival.
It certainly isn't there in our profession yet, but it will be. 

john

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

> I'm not sure this relates, but I was warned by someone who purports to be a serious observer that the net effect of my and similar comments on this forum was to cause the large companies to quickly file patents on the ideas and use those patents to stop competition.  I don't know enough about patents to know if this is true.  It seems like just the opposite of what most of us are interested in -- an open discussion of ideas.  I suspect the person making the claims to me was doing so as part of a pitch to get me to join his firm and stop publishing ideas.  No thanks.
> 
> ...
> > In regards to manufacturing, I think creating printers out 
> > of existing parts from multiple manufacturers is the way to go.
> 
> A firm tried to get me involved in such a plan, and I concluded the costs could not be held down to the point where the size of the market would support the venture.  Even with wide format printers, there are economies of scale that a small niche player will have trouble competing with.  Among other things, the costs of the parts would be much more than the internal costs to the OEM.  But, my conclusions were not based on a whole lot of research, so I would not put too much weight on them.  And, of course, if Epson succeeds in stopping us from using their printers with third party inks, such a venture might then look like a more viable option.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

You know my favorite Epson printers around here are the two lightly used 24" 7000's I picked up  for almost free and turned into hextone printers. They take small sheets and rolls beautifully. What a joy for their  very first LF design, when engineers made them as apposed to sales reps. No retarded chips, so I use clear funnel fill carts and refill right in the printer. No bizarre head cleaning programs to suck ink. Heads and dampers are easily replaced even by someone like me. And with Studio Print and QTR grayscale they are  plenty fast too and perfectly fine dither control with better dmax than any later Epson machine. The printers were almost free and the inks I buy in pint bottles. But they are clamping down on all the spare parts and they are doing everything they can to eliminate this kind of thing from the face of the earth.

j





 Imagine that. Manual printers of the highest  

> quality for people who would normally tape over the paper-out sensors  
> and jam pen in front-door switch anyway. Who needs protected ink cart  
> empty circuits and the various electrical supplies that go with them?  
> Who  needs a freaking key-code protected printhead lock?
>

> A bare-bones print engine might be cost effective if we didn't have
> ubber sensor tech like auto nozzle electrified ink sensors, and auto
> paper align sensors, and auto load sensors, and on and on and on. If
> we had a mechanic way to align the paper and stop during a paper-jam,
> etc, it would be a start. Imagine that. Manual printers of the highest
> quality for people who would normally tape over the paper-out sensors
> and jam pen in front-door switch anyway. Who needs protected ink cart
> empty circuits and the various electrical supplies that go with them?
> Who  needs a freaking key-code protected printhead lock?

Woodblock printing would seem to be just what you are seeking! Mind you, the 
Chinese might have patented it in about 800 AD.   ;)

bob F.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Walker Blackwell" <forums@...>

Steve Kale schreef:


> If you really think there's an opportunity, why not put some of the below into practice?

Let me say that it was not intentionally but it has happened to me
several times. What I wrote a reflection on that experience.

A chair design in the past.

The Nikon 8000-9000 wet mount carrier that I published on the web in
early 2002 with pictures, sold one of the four made to a US customer,
Michael Grecco got a US patent in 2007 or 2008 on essentially the same
design. Never heard of prior art :-)

Similar concepts for Epson scanners, commercialised by two or three
companies in the US, one asking me politely if he could use the concept
and granted that permission, the other sucking for more information by
writing that it couldn't work and a month later selling his version with
all the accessories needed.

Whether they would have been a commercial success in my hands has
to be seen. Even negotiating with a company that does that for you and
securing rights takes time and money which may not pay back after all.
With the wet mount carriers I found some other risks too complex.  It is
interesting that Epson doesn't sell the wet mount carrier for the
V700-V750 at all in Europe. First it wasn't in the package like it is in
the V750 US package but would be available separately, then Epson
skipped that too. I think the concept of wet mounting may not fit one of
the EU rules on the environment or consumer safety. And I thought it
would be more difficult in the US.

Lots of ideas have been uttered by others on the lists like this and
some of them have been picked up by smaller companies and by big ones.
If we all should think that the idea has commercial potential and we
shouldn't talk about it and put it in the drawer for ever then we are
halting progress. If Paul Roark wasn't so eager to explore the countless
ways to mix black pigments this list would have lost 50% of its content.
And Paul picked up suggestions, advice from others on this list and the 
Leben list before that. That MIS made most of the money on the work Paul 
did is how our society works but both forces brought Digital B&W 
printing many steps further. It keeps MIS and its employees busy, keeps 
competition alert, Paul enjoys it and we all benefit in a way.

check the archives of the Leben list:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/epson/old/
http://www.spinics.net/lists/scan/

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> Lots of ideas have been uttered by others on the lists like this and
> some of them have been picked up by smaller companies and by big ones.
> If we all should think that the idea has commercial potential and we
> shouldn't talk about it and put it in the drawer for ever then we are
> halting progress. If Paul Roark wasn't so eager to explore the  
> countless
> ways to mix black pigments this list would have lost 50% of its  
> content.
> And Paul picked up suggestions, advice from others on this list and  
> the
> Leben list before that. That MIS made most of the money on the work  
> Paul
> did is how our society works but both forces brought Digital B&W
> printing many steps further. It keeps MIS and its employees busy,  
> keeps
> competition alert, Paul enjoys it and we all benefit in a way.

Paul's relationship with MIS was rather unique in my experience. There  
are other cases of people developing for love, so to speak (the  
meaning of amateur), and getting the results produced for  
availability, but its not the standard, or even a common, method.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




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

On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:58 PM, C D Tobie wrote:

> Paul's relationship with MIS was rather unique in my experience. There
> are other cases of people developing for love, so to speak (the
> meaning of amateur), and getting the results produced for
> availability, but its not the standard, or even a common, method.

In fact, the B&W inks that Richard Wolfson and I developed for  
MediaStreet were under about the same system, though they didn't ever  
get the exposure that MIS and Paul's solutions have.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




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

Walker Blackwell <forums@...> wrote:

> ...
> Another model might be non-profit hardware supported by the 
> open-source community ...

In a sense -- and abstracting a bit -- that's what we are on this forum.

> ... This takes out a  lot of R and D costs, ...

A community of free speakers probably does lower costs.  I've heard it said humans are compulsive communicators.  Maybe this trait has evolved because it, among other things, lowers costs.  


> A real study of available parts should be done ...

In a sense, this forum and communities like it also contribute there.  Some of the "parts" we put together include the elements of our workflows, including where to find the inks, printers and related parts needed for B&W digital printing. 

> ... Find some form of legal idea structure so things discussed
> here  stay open-source and available to anyone.

In the U.S., its Constitutional "First Amendment" is the ultimate issue.  (I do not speak as a legal expert here.)  I think free speech is fundamental to a knowledge-based society, and that is the essence of the US 1st Amendment.  

> A bare-bones print engine might be cost effective ...

Yes.  QTR is.


>... Imagine that. Manual printers of the highest  
> quality for people  ...

Actually, I think the we're doing rather well.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

C D Tobie schreef:
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 3:58 PM, C D Tobie wrote:
> 
>> Paul's relationship with MIS was rather unique in my experience. There
>> are other cases of people developing for love, so to speak (the
>> meaning of amateur), and getting the results produced for
>> availability, but its not the standard, or even a common, method.
> 
> In fact, the B&W inks that Richard Wolfson and I developed for  
> MediaStreet were under about the same system, though they didn't ever  
> get the exposure that MIS and Paul's solutions have.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...

David,

I'm sure I have left out a dozen others that contributed to Digital B&W, 
whether commercially involved or pro deo.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,   Ernst


New: Dinkla Canvas Wrap Actions

|      Dinkla Grafische Techniek      |
|         www.pigment-print.com        |
|                 ( unvollendet )                 |

On 15 Apr 2009, at 8:00 AM, Walker Blackwell wrote:

> We need a system that is beautifully engineered,
> simple, manual, and of the highest quality. In other words, we need
> Hasselblad 500C printers.

I'd suggest "view camera printers" instead: no proprietary/fiddly  
technology at all, beyond the lens & shutter (in this case, the print  
head stands in for our lens).  Everything else could be made by hand  
-- either low-end (homebuilt) or high-end (like Sinars).

> A bare-bones print engine might be cost effective if we didn't have
> ubber sensor tech like auto nozzle electrified ink sensors, and auto
> paper align sensors, and auto load sensors, and on and on and on. If
> we had a mechanic way to align the paper and stop during a paper-jam,
> etc, it would be a start.

Part of the problem is that Epson et al. are designing for the mass- 
market consumer, even in their high-end systems.  So everything needs  
to just work, with as little interaction as possible.  I think that's  
one of their reasons for selling inks & papers that are designed to  
function well with their printers.  And it's also why they "dumb down"  
the system more and more over time.  The market wants more and more  
perfect prints, with no mess, jams, clogs, or color issues.  So that's  
what Epson engineers for.

As a printmaker, though, what I want is something totally different.   
After over a decade doing digital printmaking, I'd be very happy to  
get away from rolls of paper and go back to sheets.  So do away with  
roll feeding entirely, and give me a flatbed printer with:

	- A vacuum bed that would take a single sheet of paper of any  
thickness, texture, or size (depending on needs).  Allow that paper to  
be pin-registerable, either for re-printing on the same printer, or in  
cooperation with other printmaking techniques like letterpress or  
intaglio.  (Maybe a roll adaptor could allow for rolls to be used, but  
the prime "platform" would be a single sheet of paper.)

	- A 2D cross-arm plotter system that would accurately move the head  
assembly to any X,Y point on the paper.  It doesn't have to print from  
top to bottom like a regular roll-feed printer, but instead could take  
advantage of going backwards to do things like overprinting.

	- A head assembly that's mounted above the cross-arms.  It could take  
a number of heads: perhaps a simple 2- or 3-channel head for a simple  
B&W inkset, or multiple heads to do a complex B&W/color/GLOP/etc.  
inkset.

	- A flexible ink-supply system, either based on cartridges, bottles,  
or any other source.

	- A small computer that acts as a simple controller for the vacuum  
bed control, plotter, and heads.  This could be a basic single-board  
microcontroller setup, either an Arduino board or a small Linux  
system; it would have an Ethernet or WiFi controller aboard to  
communicate with the host software.

	- Software that runs on your desktop/laptop that communicates with  
the printer computer.  This could be simply a printer driver (ala QTR  
on the Mac), or it could be a standalone program that would read image  
files and then generate the commands to cause it to print.  The  
important part here is that all parameters of the printer are  
accessible and programmable: ink setup, cleaning/flushing techniques,  
dithering patterns, head channel, head position (X/Y on the plotter  
bed), and so on.

I believe the hardest part of this would probably be getting the heads  
themselves, along with the software knowledge on how to drive them.   
It may be possible to buy bare heads from a variety of manufacturers  
(see the links in the "Inkjet head design / Fixed head" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkjet_printer) 
, but I don't know how easy that would be, especially in small  
quantities.

Another tricky bit would be the ink supply system, including the usual  
pumps & vacuums that get the ink flowing regularly enough to be used  
in the heads.

Anyone else interested in this kind of thing?

--John

Reading what goes on in these lists, the ideas that are brought forth,  
the depth of knowledge and community that is present, is one of the  
more amazing things I've witnessed. Roark, Cone, et all have really  
brought about a revolution in printing even if the broader world  
doesn't recognize it. What I want to see is another level. How can we  
push the technology to combine the incredible advances of Septone with  
HiFi and over-gloss? Is it possible to design a printer system that  
can be extended from 24 to 54 or 64 inches just by buying a longer  
print-rail and head-belt and clipping on body-spacers? Roland, it  
seems, is doing some of this stuff, all-be-it behind a few doors.

How can we build a printer that is modular enough to hook up in chains  
and run live double-sided inkjet?

How can we build a printer system that can accommodate any print-head,  
thermal, piezo, light-emitting (for lightjet, etc), even silver- 
emulsion.

There are so many possibilities out there, but no one standard, open- 
source, starting-place. I think the advanced in ink and software have  
been totally amazing in the past 7 years. But what about hardware? In  
the end, we are at its mercy.

Walker

> In a sense, this forum and communities like it also contribute there.  Some of the "parts" we put together include the elements of our workflows, including where to find the inks, printers and related parts needed for B&W digital printing. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That is very true, simple things like Ernst reverse engineering the Epson 10K carts and providing the ability to refill them with what you need in them, when you want to refill them. I did it again yesterday with Cones BW inks and I've never had clog. That turned something that would have ended up in the landfill years ago into a great device.

The thing that worries a lot of people who would like a different model is that they are making it harder, and harder, and harder, to get parts, retrofit machines and keep em going, etc, to the point that people just give up and cave in to the same "advanced systems"... I see it happening everywhere. Where a lot of people, pros and amateurs, used to experiment and custom design their setups, now they're moving away from it. It's just too much to fight. And, then everything looks the same, works the same, has the same longevity, etc. Then you might as well just be selling it all at Walmart and Kinkos. It isn't a conspiracy, it is very much in the open .

- A vacuum bed that would take a single sheet of paper of any
thickness, texture, or size (depending on needs). Allow that paper to
be pin-registerable, either for re-printing on the same printer, or in
cooperation with other printmaking techniques like letterpress or
intaglio. (Maybe a roll adaptor could allow for rolls to be used, but
the prime "platform" would be a single sheet of paper.)

Yes!  This is what I've wanted from the start!

A 2D cross-arm plotter system that would accurately move the head
assembly to any X,Y point on the paper. It doesn't have to print from
top to bottom like a regular roll-feed printer, but instead could take
advantage of going backwards to do things like overprinting.

Yep. See the open-source 3d printer. Similar but in xyz. The problem  
would be to get everything constantly aligned to within 1440th of an  
inch.

- A head assembly that's mounted above the cross-arms. It could take
a number of heads: perhaps a simple 2- or 3-channel head for a simple
B&W inkset, or multiple heads to do a complex B&W/color/GLOP/etc.
inkset.

Yes. And if a somehow we standardized the mount, it would become  
industry-wide.

- A flexible ink-supply system, either based on cartridges, bottles,
or any other source.

What about using knowledge from the medical industry and IV bags? They  
seem to have figured out the fluid flow stuff with nearly zero clog  
issues. They would have to. People die otherwise.

- A small computer that acts as a simple controller for the vacuum
bed control, plotter, and heads. This could be a basic single-board
microcontroller setup, either an Arduino board or a small Linux
system; it would have an Ethernet or WiFi controller aboard to
communicate with the host software.

Yeah. The key is to standardize this part and make it modular so  
people can attach add-on control boards for things like roter cutters,  
double printing, etc.

- Software that runs on your desktop/laptop that communicates with
the printer computer. This could be simply a printer driver (ala QTR
on the Mac), or it could be a standalone program that would read image
files and then generate the commands to cause it to print. The
important part here is that all parameters of the printer are
accessible and programmable: ink setup, cleaning/flushing techniques,
dithering patterns, head channel, head position (X/Y on the plotter
bed), and so on.

Yeah. And we would need to create a standardized LUT editor software/ 
workflow for X print-head. Way complicated.

All the old Epson heads are out there (but rare), but we need good  
ones. Using multiples . . . gets complicated. hmm.

Walker




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

The flatbed printers do seem a lot less messy to work on. I wonder what a truly bare bones one would look like, just head, vaccum board, feeding mechanism, and a controller board?  A place in town has a big one people take to print on metal and wood panels, or anything really. They have been around a long time, before Epson. I believe these were developed originally for the grand format sign industry, such a printing on vinyl for buses, buildings etc. Some even used acrylic inks over a decade ago. They can get really, really big.


http://www.oceusa.com/odgs/odgs_product_detail.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302162821&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441901408


http://www.screenusa.com/images/products/site_includes/printing/truepress_jet2500UV_hr.jpg

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> The flatbed printers do seem a lot less messy to work on...

I have to tell you guys, the first time I got to spend any real time chatting with Jon Cone in 2005, this is exactly what he wanted to build, and had given it a great deal of thought...
Clearly great minds think alike<G>.

Of course, this is an entirely different market from say, the 2880. One unfortunate reality of all of this is that if we want systems that are uncoupled from dependency on ink sales, the hardware is going to cost us much more.
The available solution for people like me might be getting into a Roland or whatever, but that's not viable for the average home artist. Unfortunately ink batches must be made in quantities large enough to make sense, and if the largest part of the market, the desktop printers, lock out all 3rd party inks, then the manufacturing quantities aren't there, and there may be no ink for me to purchase for my Roland (on a credit card no doubt) to buy.

I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can not offer Epson support, their market is probably halved at least, so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well. It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win" scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political climate.
Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art photographic printing.

Why did Kodak give Edward Westin some Ektachrome just to see what he thought of it? They never mentioned it in any marketing.. Why did Edwin Land give all the greats some polaroid to try? Did you ever see Paul Caponigro in a Polaroid ad?
gee, maybe they were interested in making something master photographers liked, maybe.
Tyler

Tyler makes an important point, one that probably illustrates a change in business climate or attitude, comparing thirty or more years ago to today. Kodak, Ilford, Polaroid, Agfa... they all sought out the opinions of working photographers. Today we get shills who are basically recruited to become walking advertisements for corporations; sometimes they're photographers, sometimes not. Sometimes they're printers, sometimes not. Usually not. Boy, does that irk me.



I just don't get it. I must be missing something really important. Wouldn't it make more sense for Epson to actively support and encourage us? I cannot believe that sales to this list, for example, are anything but an extremely small portion of their business. Why not befriend and enable those who have some influence over amateurs and students? I've taught workshops for over twenty years--Maine, Santa Fe, Anderson Ranch, Royal Photographic Society of Scotland--lots and lots of students. And I can tell you that I've sold one hell of a lot of equipment for manufacturers simply because it was the equipment I use (now its hardware and software mostly).




If you are listening Epson: I'll sell your stuff for you, just adjust your attitude and help us do our job. And you won't have to pay me anything, or give me free stuff!




They just don't get it.




Bill Kennedy

-----Original Message-----
From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 7:01 pm
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Is this 
a "conspiracy theory" ?


























    

            
            


      
      
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

>

> The flatbed printers do seem a lot less messy to work on...



I have to tell you guys, the first time I got to spend any real time chatting with Jon Cone in 2005, this is exactly what he wanted to build, and had given it a great deal of thought...

Clearly great minds think alike<G>.



Of course, this is an entirely different market from say, the 2880. One unfortunate reality of all of this is that if we want systems that are uncoupled from dependency on ink sales, the hardware is going to cost us much more.

The available solution for people like me might be getting into a Roland or whatever, but that's not viable for the average home artist. Unfortunately ink batches must be made in quantities large enough to make sense, and if the largest part of the market, the desktop printers, lock out all 3rd party inks, then the manufacturing quantities aren't there, and there may be no ink for me to purchase for my Roland (on a credit card no doubt) to buy.



I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can not offer Epson support, their market is probably20halved at least, so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well. It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win" scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political climate.

Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art photographic printing.



Why did Kodak give Edward Westin some Ektachrome just to see what he thought of it? They never mentioned it in any marketing.. Why did Edwin Land give all the greats some polaroid to try? Did you ever see Paul Caponigro in a Polaroid ad?

gee, maybe they were interested in making something master photographers liked, maybe.

Tyler





 

    
  

    
    


    
    
    
    


    


    
    
    
    
    


 






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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Why did Kodak give Edward Westin some Ektachrome just to see what he thought of it? They never mentioned it in any marketing.. Why did Edwin Land give all the greats some polaroid to try? Did you ever see Paul Caponigro in a Polaroid ad?
> gee, maybe they were interested in making something master photographers liked, maybe.
> Tyler
>

Epson gives lots of so called experts free printers... Of course these experts also use only Epson inks, ever.

Of corse if Epson would consider making the ink sets that some people want, then maybe they could take another slice of pie from the third party inks.

There are two companies that I never saw any interest in discussing what "we" thought about what they sold us, one was Kodak ( Weston in the 1940's withstanding) and the other is Epson.

Oddly enough a couple of years ago at Photo Expo in Ny we were shocked to find out that HP had brought their Spanish and German engineers to Ny to talk to people like us about what we thought about what they were doing.??? They even asked our opinions about what else we might need that they didn't provide in this first model. We were shocked. And from an outfit like HP to boot! Will this continue? I sincerely doubt it but it was the first time I ever saw an engineer in one of those booths other than the Studio Print guys and Cone. 

But Bill is right on. Why don't they? When we walked over to the Epson booth that same day and asked when they were going to offer auto switching between MK an PK without flushing and wasting tons of ink, they were laughing at us and commented don't hold your breath pal, it's not a priority. Course they did it when everyone else was eclipsing them. They knew what we wanted, they didn't care. No, we didn't see any engineers around the Epson booth that year. And, we never will.

john

At that point it might be time to entice a lawyer of sorts into filing a class action suit against the company for those actions. Any monetary return would, of course, benefit only the lawyer but it might loosen the chains a bit if successful. It also wouldn't entail any direct cost to the injured consumer.

Regards,
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark" <pr_roark@...> wrote:
>
 And, of course, if Epson succeeds in stopping us from using their printers with third party inks, such a venture might then look like a more viable option.

> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
...
> Epson gives lots of so called experts free printers... Of course these > experts also use only Epson inks, ever....

I know a lot of experts, and I know some people that get free printers.
I'm sorry to say that there are few to none common to both lists...
Additionally, why would Epson give any free printers to anyone not using their inks, experts or otherwise?
Tyler

Actually the net precursor (ARPA) has been around for a half century or more and scientists long long ago left the dungeons and spooky castles for interconnected labs.Even the Epsons of the world couldn't survive without constant streams of outside input.There is information on just about anything available to just about anyone. It does take effort to come by it but all it takes is the will to do it.
That will is much easier to marshal if one is being paid for the effort and can spend full time doing it. Most aren't in a position to do that and some simply have spread backsides and want others to do all the lifting.(Not making any implication here John :-))

Regards,
Duane
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:

> My brother is a phd and 30 year veteran of micro biology and immunology research. It used to be that you could keep things very close to the vest and patent everything. Now the web and mandatory sharing of data has broken a lot of that wide open. Scientists can't hide anymore if they really want to progress because sharing info IS how they get ahead now. Open information is critical for survival.
> It certainly isn't there in our profession yet, but it will be. 
> 
> john
> 
> ---------------
>  

>

That was pathetic. Don't know what your implying in the least. Despite the fact that the web was invented by and for the scientific community, it was not universally used by most scientists in the early days of slow computers and poor interface, most of these dialogues in biological specialties were always held at annual conferences, where "papers" were given by those that had sponsorships of major institutions like NIH, Bethesda Medical, big universities, various European and Asian government sponsored groups etc. It has only been within the last decade or so that the web has been the primary source of daily direct communication for them, by passing their own sponsors and by passing published periodicals like Science, Nature, etc, that in the past held the most influence in gaining access to big grants, etc, etc. 

But this is side comment and totally insignificant to the prospect of open source flat bed designs for printing. I'm sorry I brought it up in passing.

j


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:

>
> Actually the net precursor (ARPA) has been around for a half century or more and scientists long long ago left the dungeons and spooky castles for interconnected labs.Even the Epsons of the world couldn't survive without constant streams of outside input.There is information on just about anything available to just about anyone. It does take effort to come by it but all it takes is the will to do it.
> That will is much easier to marshal if one is being paid for the effort and can spend full time doing it. Most aren't in a position to do that and some simply have spread backsides and want others to do all the lifting.(Not making any implication here John :-))
> 
> Regards,
> Duane
>

The money is in the ink.  They have every right (and, in fact,  
obligation) to defend their investment.  You have two basic choices.  
Develop, produce and sell a printer for which you will not require  
people to be bound to your ink.  That will be an expensive printer if  
you want a sensible commercial return. Or convince Epson there is a  
big enough, profitable enough, market for them to produce (or brand  
and distribute) an Epson range of B&W dedicated inks and so open up  
their printer architecture to higher order Epson K printing (they've  
already gone 3K).  They're never going to intentionally open up to x- 
brand ink - they'd be stupid to do so. (I'm surprised they haven't  
bothered to shut down QTR in some manner -  be thankful for that  
little gem.)  The bottom line is likely that they have explored higher  
order Epson K inks and decided it's not commercially viable because  
you/we won't pay enough for the ink. 3K was a well thought out balance.


On 16 Apr 2009, at 01:01, Tyler Boley wrote:

>
>
> I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support  
> contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for  
> Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can  
> not offer Epson support, their market is probably halved at least,  
> so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make  
> prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well.  
> It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are  
> a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to  
> assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with  
> protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are  
> not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win"  
> scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political  
> climate.
> Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to  
> get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases  
> to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art  
> photographic printing.
>



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

Tyler Boley wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>   
>> The flatbed printers do seem a lot less messy to work on...
>>     
>
> Why did Kodak give Edward Westin some Ektachrome just to see what he thought of it? They never mentioned it in any marketing.. Why did Edwin Land give all the greats some polaroid to try? Did you ever see Paul Caponigro in a Polaroid ad?
> gee, maybe they were interested in making something master photographers liked, maybe.
> Tyler

Easy. Kodak then wasn't run by bean counters, neither was Polaroid. Both 
were run by visionaries who understood that if a company made a quality 
product that did what the users wanted, they would buy it. It's a 
completely different mind set than what runs corporations today.

What we have today is innovation by bean counters. Instead of new and 
innovative ink systems, Epson sells new and innovative systems to keep 
third party inks and (to a lesser extent) papers out of "their" 
printers. What the customer wants be damned.

What we need is competition. But remember, competition is only good for 
the customers. Corporations hate competition with a passion. Witness 
Epson's bad corporate behavior toward ink vendors and RIP vendors who 
support them. How we get said competition into the market is hard to 
imagine. The barrier to entry to this market is steep. It's not nearly 
as easy to design and manufacture a printer as many here seem to 
believe, and it will take several prototypes and lots of testing to 
smooth off the rough edges and make something you could bring to market. 
All this takes is time, money, a decent sized workshop (that's decently 
equipped), and floor space to build in. Oh, yes, and print heads. Epson 
sure as hell is *not* going to sell us print heads. Designing a new 
print head is a whole new level of R&D, as is manufacturing a print 
head. Extreme accuracy and precision required.
--
Bruce Watson

As well reasoned as this post may be, and I do agree that the money is in the ink, I cannot agree with the assessment. The money, from the ink, comes primarily from those little cartridges that Epson sells by the tens of thousands every day. Like film, ink sales are driven not by professionals but by the vast number of amateurs and home users.



If Epson actively supported the professional fine art printing market, rather than trying to regulate it, I propose that their ink sales would increase.




Epson either has not thought this through properly or they are taking a calculated risk that, in the end, I do not think will work. I am the chair of a photography program at a university in Austin, Texas. We have extensive digital imaging labs to support our curriculum (incidentally, we also continue to support a complete wet darkroom operation). We currently have eight 4800/4880's, two 7800's, and one 9880 in operation. Our ink costs exceed $15k per semester.




We enjoy no special discounts on ink or paper despite the volume. There is no local service provider; if we have a problem with a printer, that our lab manager cannot resolve, we are forced to either replace the printer or pay for a service call out of Houston or Dallas. We enjoy no enhanced services whatsoever, despite our investment.




I hope someone at Epson is reading these posts because we are actively looking for alternatives. We tested Canon printers but they were something of a disaster (paper trays so flim
sy and poorly designed as to laughable, bad software, and insanely poor documentation) and we could not use our RIP's to drive them because Canon has a serious black box mentality. We're currently looking at HP (we've been using a Z3100 in my studio, K2 Press, for about a year now; excellent machine but finicky; Walker, I'd give almost anything for a well build printer devoid of unnecessary features that don't work properly). For the time being, we will stay with Epson hardware but we are purchasing refillable clear carts and bulk ink from Cone.




Epson has lost $30k in ink sales and may lose their hardware sales to us. More importantly, Epson will lose their position as the printer of choice when students make their own purchases. Compare that to MacOnCampus, a really well thought out program where companies like Mamiya, Sekonic, Toyo, ProPhoto and Eizo sell discounted products to students and begin a relationship that may continue throughout their careers.




My point is simple: Epson's draconian attitude is working against them. I see the effects every day. If I were a stock holder in Epson I'd be screaming. There is no sense of partnership, no communication (I have never, not once, been asked by any employee of Epson what I thought about their stuff, or if I had feedback or ideas,or--wonder of wonders, if there was anything they could do for us...).




Long story short, you can talk about business strategy all day long but if the focus is only on the bottom line you will 
ultimately lose. As Yvon Chouinard has said, you start the climb as an asshole and you end the climb as an asshole. If Epson followed Patagonia's business model we'd all benefit and, I believe, Epson would make more money.







Bill Kennedy

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 4:06 am
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?


























    

            
            


      
      
The money is in the ink.  They have every right (and, in fact,  

obligation) to defend their investment.  You have two basic choices.  

Develop, produce and sell a printer for which you will not require  

people to be bound to your ink.  That will be an expensive printer if  

you want a sensible commercial return. Or convince Epson there is a  

big enough, profitable enough, market for them to produce (or brand  

and distribute) an Epson range of B&W dedicated inks and so open up  

their printer architecture to higher order Epson K printing (they've  

already gone 3K).  They're never going to intentionally open up to x- 

brand ink - they'd be stupid to do so. (I'm surprised they haven't  

bothered to shut down QTR in some manner -  be thankful for that  

little gem.)  The bottom line is likely that they have explored higher  

o
rder Epson K inks and decided it's not commercially viable because  

you/we won't pay enough for the ink. 3K was a well thought out balance.



On 16 Apr 2009, at 01:01, Tyler Boley wrote:



>

>

> I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support  

> contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for  

> Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can  

> not offer Epson support, their market is probably halved at least,  

> so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make  

> prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well.  

> It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are  

> a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to  

> assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with  

> protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are  

> not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win"  

> scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political  

> climate.

> Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to  

> get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases  

> to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art  

> photographic printing.

>



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





 

    
  

    
    


    
    
    
    


    


    
    
    
    
    


 






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

We've switched over to Cone ink at UVM as well. The reason why we've  
never switched until now is because we don't have to redo the over 120  
different paper profiles we have installed on the machines. The Cone  
ink just works. Of course, I do build new profiles for the major  
papers. Crane Portfolio, HPR 308, Silver Rag, Enh Matte, etc. But it's  
pulled our ink costs down by 60% or so.

Walker


On Apr 16, 2009, at 9:40 AM, BKPhoto@... wrote:

>
>
> As well reasoned as this post may be, and I do agree that the money  
> is in the ink, I cannot agree with the assessment. The money, from  
> the ink, comes primarily from those little cartridges that Epson  
> sells by the tens of thousands every day. Like film, ink sales are  
> driven not by professionals but by the vast number of� amateurs and  
> home users.
>
> If Epson actively supported the professional fine art printing  
> market, rather than trying to regulate it, I propose that their ink  
> sales would increase.
>
> Epson either has not thought this through properly or they are  
> taking a calculated risk that, in the end, I do not think will work.  
> I am the chair of a photography program at a university in Austin,  
> Texas. We have extensive digital imaging labs to support our  
> curriculum (incidentally, we also continue to support a complete wet  
> darkroom operation). We currently have eight 4800/4880's, two  
> 7800's, and one 9880 in operation. Our ink costs exceed $15k per  
> semester.
>
> We enjoy no special discounts on ink or paper despite the volume.  
> There is no local service provider; if we have a problem with a  
> printer, that our lab manager cannot resolve, we are forced to  
> either replace the printer or pay for a service call out of Houston  
> or Dallas. We enjoy no enhanced services whatsoever, despite our  
> investment.
>
> I hope someone at Epson is reading these posts because we are  
> actively looking for alternatives. We tested Canon printers but they  
> were something of a disaster (paper trays so flim
> sy and poorly designed as to laughable, bad software, and insanely  
> poor documentation) and we could not use our RIP's to drive them  
> because Canon has a serious black box mentality. We're currently  
> looking at HP (we've been using a Z3100 in my studio, K2 Press, for  
> about a year now; excellent machine but finicky; Walker, I'd give  
> almost anything for a well build printer devoid of unnecessary  
> features that don't work properly). For the time being, we will stay  
> with Epson hardware but we are purchasing refillable clear carts and  
> bulk ink from Cone.
>
> Epson has lost $30k in ink sales and may lose their hardware sales  
> to us.� More importantly, Epson will lose their position as the  
> printer of choice when students make their own purchases. Compare  
> that to MacOnCampus, a really well thought out program where  
> companies like Mamiya, Sekonic, Toyo, ProPhoto and Eizo sell  
> discounted products to students and begin a relationship that may  
> continue throughout their careers.
>
> My point is simple: Epson's draconian attitude is working against  
> them. I see the effects every day. If I were a stock holder in Epson  
> I'd be screaming. There is no sense of partnership, no communication  
> (I have never, not once, been asked by any employee of Epson what I  
> thought about their stuff, or if I had feedback or ideas,or--wonder  
> of wonders, if there was anything they could do for us...).
>
> Long story short, you can talk about business strategy all day long  
> but if the focus is only on the bottom line you will
> ultimately lose. As Yvon Chouinard has said, you start the climb as  
> an asshole and you end the climb as an asshole. If Epson followed  
> Patagonia's business model we'd all benefit and, I believe, Epson  
> would make more money.
>
> Bill Kennedy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 4:06 am
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Is this a "conspiracy theory" ?
>
> The money is in the ink. They have every right (and, in fact,
>
> obligation) to defend their investment. You have two basic choices.
>
> Develop, produce and sell a printer for which you will not require
>
> people to be bound to your ink. That will be an expensive printer if
>
> you want a sensible commercial return. Or convince Epson there is a
>
> big enough, profitable enough, market for them to produce (or brand
>
> and distribute) an Epson range of B&W dedicated inks and so open up
>
> their printer architecture to higher order Epson K printing (they've
>
> already gone 3K). They're never going to intentionally open up to x-
>
> brand ink - they'd be stupid to do so. (I'm surprised they haven't
>
> bothered to shut down QTR in some manner - be thankful for that
>
> little gem.) The bottom line is likely that they have explored higher
>
> o
> rder Epson K inks and decided it's not commercially viable because
>
> you/we won't pay enough for the ink. 3K was a well thought out  
> balance.
>
> On 16 Apr 2009, at 01:01, Tyler Boley wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm glad Walker mentioned Epson recently making Ergosft support
>
> > contingent upon locking out multiple Ks, beyond what is needed for
>
> > Epsons. I forgot to mention this before. Basically, if Ergosoft can
>
> > not offer Epson support, their market is probably halved at least,
>
> > so of course they had to comply. If the available tools to make
>
> > prints with these inksets diminish, then use will diminish as well.
>
> > It's not just patent, license, copyright, all that stuff. There are
>
> > a number of ways the larger companies are able to apply pressure to
>
> > assert their domination that have nothing whatsoever to do with
>
> > protecting intellectual property or hard won innovation. These are
>
> > not nice clean idealogical issues, or "may the best man win"
>
> > scenarios. As Paul mentioned, it has a lot to do with political
>
> > climate.
>
> > Why Epson would not be proud of the amazing quality we are able to
>
> > get from their hardware with these alternative systems never ceases
>
> > to amaze me, and makes clear their priorities- NOT state of the art
>
> > photographic printing.
>
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 

Walker Blackwell
802.735.0621
www.walkerblackwell.com
aim: greendirtblues





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

If Epson actively supported the professional fine art printing
> market, rather than trying to regulate it, I propose that their ink
> sales would increase.


What ever happened to the Ultra Giclee Certification Program? :-).  Maybe it was certified but not clarified.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> 
> If Epson actively supported the professional fine art printing
> > market, rather than trying to regulate it, I propose that their ink
> > sales would increase.
> 
> 
> What ever happened to the Ultra Giclee Certification Program? :-).  Maybe it was certified but not clarified.
>

Also remember that at one time Epson was also in the print making business. Anyone with a small format machine could print proofs and then send their images to Epson to get larger format prints. Not sure if they still offer this or not.