Digital BW, The Print

Harvey,
Could you please contact me off-list.
I would like to discuss this post below with you in more of a "confidential" manor.
Thanks in advance, - JT

  >>  Also, IT technologies who bought the 'dated' technology license from
  >>   Scitex (or
  >>  Microtek) has a *terrible* reputation!  These are the guys who bring us
  >>  'Chromazone Inks', which were discussed a couple of months ago, and
  >>   thoroughly
  >>  trashed by the lists.

  >>  Harvey Ferdschneider
  >>  partner, SKID Photography, NYC







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



  >>  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  >>   other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

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

  >>  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  >>  - Include your full name with your message.
  >>  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  >>  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  >>   them short.
  >>  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  >>  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  >>  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  >>  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  >>   resources on the homepage. 


  >>   

  >>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Todd Flashner wrote:

>  on 2/13/02 6:00 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I tried going to
> the
> > 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very impressive,
> > despite
> > their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater.  Sounds to me like
>
> > the
> > 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
>
> If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or 400?) and
> it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I think "stated"
> dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys ;-)) in
> this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for an Epson
> 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
>
> Todd
>

Todd,
Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an inkjet device?

And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it that
*nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel) resolution?

And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference in the output
quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter droplet size
can be perceived.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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

Hi guys...   Durst is like the the LightJet... the 300 to 400 dpi resolution
is the file's resolution needed for output... although you used to be able
to send 105 dpi files as it has amazing interpolation technology.

The output resolution is mute... it's something like the equivalent to
4000dpi I think. But of course I could be out to lunch.

It's the same as with the inkjets Harvey... a file of 240 to 480 or more as
the files resolution output to your ink jet at the optimal printing
resolution for that particular printer...

Carolyn

>> If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or 400?) and
>> it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I think "stated"
>> dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys ;-)) in
>> this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for an Epson
>> 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
> 
> Todd,
> Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an inkjet device?
> 
> And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it that
> *nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel) resolution?
> 
> And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference in the
> output
> quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter droplet size
> can be perceived.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Ron,
What gave you the idea that I have not had any first hand experience in dealing
with Improved Technologies?  In fact, I have dealt with them directly and got
nothing but double speak from their in house ink person who was, as I recall,
presented to me as the most knowledgeable person in their company regarding the
Chromazone Inks.  The person I spoke with was totally ignorant of their
product.  Including telling me that their 'pigmented' inks were dye based!

I do not discount your good experience with them, but mine was terrible, and
showed a complete lack of understanding of their products as well as others on
the market.  At the time that I spoke with them, I had not settled on the
Indelibles, but if my memory serves me correctly (and it might not), it ends up
that the Chromazone inks are a 'rebranded' form of another ink, showed
metamerism, and are a hybrid of pigment and dye.  Which would certainly explain
a better gamut, but also indicate less long-term stability.

So I stand by what I said, I.T., in my opinion has a bad reputation based on not
only on my experience, (and the un-named person you mentioned), but also others
on the Epson 2000P, Epson-Inkjet Leben and Epson 9000 lists.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC.


>  Harvey,
>
> With all respect, I think you're speaking badly of Improved Technologies
> (IT) without any first-hand experience.  Not that I feel the need to defend
> them, but I'd merely like to offer a different viewpoint from a different
> perspective, that of one of their customers.
>
> Prior to acquiring the tools to do my own printing, I had work done for many
> years by a number of print-makers who use IRIS and/or IXIA printers.  IMHO,
> they are still king of the inkjet printers, regardless of what the specs
> say.  In the hands of a skilled operator, the output is unbeatable.  And, IT
> has made significant improvements with the IXIA.
>
> I spent many months researching my LF printer purchase, and decided to go
> with the IT I-JET printer for a number of reasons, not the least of which
> was personal recommendations from my former printers, that IT was a company
> I could count on for quality technology, service, and support.  This has
> been my experience with them for the past year.
>
> Regarding the Chromazone inks, I know that you're a big fan of the
> Indelibles, this somewhat surprising since you haven't even used them yet,
> but contrary to your opinion of the Chromazones, they are a great inkset.
> As I mentioned in a previous post, I have built profiles for both Indelibles
> and the Chromazone pigs using the Gretag Spectralino and Monaco Profiler,
> and the Chromazone pigments have a slightly larger color gamut.  I'd be
> willing to bet that longevity and metamerism are quite comparable as well.
> I have no doubt that the Indelibles are a great inkset, and I hope you have
> as good of an experience using them as I have had using the Chromazones.
>
> I know of the person whom you have received bad reviews of IT and the
> Chromazone inks from, and believe this person is upset with IT, and
> consequently trashing them, since they didn't give him a printer in exchange
> for some of his prints.  What a ridiculous proposal that was from the start.
>
> These lists are a great resource but often the source of bad information.  I
> urge you to report on what you have first-hand experience with.  Myself, and
> many others, would disagree with your reporting of IT having *terrible*
> reputation, and your assessment of the IRIS/IXIA technology is way off base
> too.
>
> Ron Landucci
>
>
> David,
> Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I tried going to
> the
> 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very impressive,
> despite
> their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater.  Sounds to me like
> the
> 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
>
> Also, IT technologies who bought the 'dated' technology license from Scitex
> (or
> Microtek) has a *terrible* reputation!  These are the guys who bring us
> 'Chromazone Inks', which were discussed a couple of months ago, and
> thoroughly
> trashed by the lists.
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
>
>





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

Harvey,

I am not an expert. I am a collector of information. IRIS Graphics
printers were the prestigious quality inkjet system years ago when I
started my notes card file. There were not yet EPSON printers useful
for photography. IRIS printers print pixels with dots which is of
their sole distinction.It prints the pixels with many many tiny dots
of ink. The dots are of varying sizes. If you need to know the dpi of
those many dots as a comparison to Epson you can easily find this
information at http://www.cone-editions.com/conetech/3047.htm  and at
http://www.irisgraphicsinc.com/index.html

I have had IRIS prints made and they are a just a little finer than
EPSON 9000 prints in perceptive visual quality. What I like best
about IRIS is that they do not need coated papers to have good
looking color. So the softer papers afford a quality which is
preferable to my eyes. They are velvety yet sharp. I am sorry that
they never made one for home use. We would have bought one.

-Della




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
<skid@b...> wrote:
> Todd Flashner wrote:
> 
> >  on 2/13/02 6:00 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > > David,
> > > Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I
tried going to
> > the
> > > 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very
impressive,
> > > despite
> > > their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater. 
Sounds to me like
> >
> > > the
> > > 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or
400?) and
> > it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I
think "stated"
> > dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys
;-)) in
> > this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for
an Epson
> > 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> 
> Todd,
> Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an
inkjet device?
> 
> And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it
that
> *nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel)
resolution?
> 
> And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference
in the output
> quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter
droplet size

> can be perceived.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

dellaellingson wrote:

> I am not an expert. I am a collector of information. IRIS Graphics
> printers were the prestigious quality inkjet system years ago when I
> started my notes card file. There were not yet EPSON printers useful
> for photography.

We are in agreement.  They were first and expensive.

> IRIS printers print pixels with dots which is of
> their sole distinction.It prints the pixels with many many tiny dots
> of ink.

This is also true of *ALL* Epson printers as well.

> The dots are of varying sizes.

Some Epson printers do this as well.

> If you need to know the dpi of
> those many dots as a comparison to Epson you can easily find this
> information at http://www.cone-editions.com/conetech/3047.htm  and at
> http://www.irisgraphicsinc.com/index.html

I do not need to.  The IXIA website says they print at 300 dpi.  I will add that
when I have had Iris prints made (on a semi gloss coated substrate, not an
uncoated 'art' paper), I was always surprised at the coarseness of the dot
pattern.

>
> I have had IRIS prints made and they are a just a little finer than
> EPSON 9000 prints in perceptive visual quality. What I like best
> about IRIS is that they do not need coated papers to have good
> looking color. So the softer papers afford a quality which is
> preferable to my eyes. They are velvety yet sharp.

I do not understand why you think that Epson dye based inks cannot be printed on
uncoated papers.  The only 'trick' is to profile your paper and ink
combination.  Its the pigment inks that *need* to be printed on coated papers to
get acceptable results, not dye based inks that the Epson 9000 is designed to
print with.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



> I am sorry that
> they never made one for home use. We would have bought one.
>
> -Della
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Todd Flashner wrote:
> >
> > >  on 2/13/02 6:00 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> > >
> > > > David,
> > > > Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I
> tried going to
> > > the
> > > > 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very
> impressive,
> > > > despite
> > > > their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater.
> Sounds to me like
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
> > >
> > > If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or
> 400?) and
> > > it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I
> think "stated"
> > > dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys
> ;-)) in
> > > this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for
> an Epson
> > > 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> >
> > Todd,
> > Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an
> inkjet device?
> >
> > And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it
> that
> > *nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel)
> resolution?
> >
> > And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference
> in the output
> > quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter
> droplet size
> > can be perceived.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >





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

Ron,

I have had some dealing with IT. I have to say that I found no problem with
them at all. It seems that a certain individual has been talking up a storm
on the other lists as well. He has had something to say about Prazio as
well. I have been ordering scanner supplies from Prazio for over a year and
they have been a great resource for my drum scanner questions, let alone the
supplies.

I really can not understand how anyone can recommend a product such as inks,
without actually using them. I know nothing about Indelibles from first hand
experience, but hear that folks like them. A friend of mine owns Palm Beach
Editions. He buys all of his IRIS supplies and inks from IT and swears by
their service.

This list can be a great resource for people seeking information, but not at
the expense of self proclaimed experts that have never used the products or
had business dealings with certain companies. For a quite some time I was a
platinum printer. I loved the process and wrote a number of short articles
about certain aspects of the process including making enlarged negatives
with inexpensive lith films and pyro. I am not an expert, I only try to
share my experience and stay silent on subjects that I know nothing about. I
suugest that certain individuals try very hard not to cloud the lovely clear
water by stirring up the bottom. We will be lost in a sea of confusion.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with IT. I order tens of thousands of
dollars worth of supplies a year for my office and I love to share my
professional experiences with folks that do not have the resources or first
hand knowlege or can not afford to make a mistake.

Mike


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

From: "Ron Landucci" <ron@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Iris Printers, was: Running into inkjet work....


> Harvey,
>
> With all respect, I think you're speaking badly of Improved Technologies
> (IT) without any first-hand experience.

> I do not understand why you think that Epson dye based inks cannot be
printed on
> uncoated papers.  The only 'trick' is to profile your paper and ink
> combination.  Its the pigment inks that *need* to be printed on coated
papers to
> get acceptable results, not dye based inks that the Epson 9000 is designed
to
> print with.
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Harvey,

Epson 9000 prints can be made on uncoated papers. However, depending on the
paper and the profile, not all will be successful. I have a 10000 with
Photographic Dyes. I profile the inks and print on a large variety of
papers. Some coated papers such and the Hanemuhle papers are designed to
successfully print dyes and pigments.

There are no definite rules here. To say that "Its the pigment inks that
*need* to be printed on coated papers to
get acceptable results, not dye based inks that the Epson 9000 is designed
to print with." Is not 100% true. I have had great success printing MIS
piggies on uncoated and well profiled papers.

Mike

Harvey,

You are missing some of the unobvious. EPSON printers do not print pixels. They print dots of ink which are created by the image file which is RIP processed by either EPSON driver software or another RIP. The data that is printed is dot placement data.

IRIS files are pixel files which interleave the 4 colors. The data sent to the printer is a pixel of color. The IRIS printer images the pixel onto the paper by filling it in with dots of ink. A single pixel can be printed with many as 124 drops of ink.

I believe that you think there are more similarities than exist in a reality with these different technology.

Yes of course you can print on any paper you intend with an EPSON. What I attempted to illustrate is that an EPSON needs a coating in order to promote a good color gamut. The IRIS is able to print dots of ink the size of 93 picolitres when it requires great depth of color. This the EPSON can not do. A coating will promote better color depth on the EPSON. Do you see what I mean now?

Harvey, you must give this process another try. I think that you have concluded a judgement based on an experience which was not favorable. You must not let a disappointing experience allow you to judge the entire medium. What would happen if someone viewed a substandard EPSON print and judged us all so?  Do you want me to e-mail you transposed notes of the IRIS Graphics process? It is very unusual. I will if you like.

-Della


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> wrote:

> dellaellingson wrote:
> 
> > I am not an expert. I am a collector of information. IRIS Graphics
> > printers were the prestigious quality inkjet system years ago when I
> > started my notes card file. There were not yet EPSON printers useful
> > for photography.
> 
> We are in agreement.  They were first and expensive.
> 
> > IRIS printers print pixels with dots which is of
> > their sole distinction.It prints the pixels with many many tiny dots
> > of ink.
> 
> This is also true of *ALL* Epson printers as well.
> 
> > The dots are of varying sizes.
> 
> Some Epson printers do this as well.
> 
> > If you need to know the dpi of
> > those many dots as a comparison to Epson you can easily find this
> > information at http://www.cone-editions.com/conetech/3047.htm  and at
> > http://www.irisgraphicsinc.com/index.html
> 
> I do not need to.  The IXIA website says they print at 300 dpi.  I will add that
> when I have had Iris prints made (on a semi gloss coated substrate, not an
> uncoated 'art' paper), I was always surprised at the coarseness of the dot
> pattern.
> 
> >
> > I have had IRIS prints made and they are a just a little finer than
> > EPSON 9000 prints in perceptive visual quality. What I like best
> > about IRIS is that they do not need coated papers to have good
> > looking color. So the softer papers afford a quality which is
> > preferable to my eyes. They are velvety yet sharp.
> 
> I do not understand why you think that Epson dye based inks cannot be printed on
> uncoated papers.  The only 'trick' is to profile your paper and ink
> combination.  Its the pigment inks that *need* to be printed on coated papers to
> get acceptable results, not dye based inks that the Epson 9000 is designed to
> print with.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
> 
> > I am sorry that
> > they never made one for home use. We would have bought one.
> >
> > -Della
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> > <skid@b...> wrote:
> > > Todd Flashner wrote:
> > >
> > > >  on 2/13/02 6:00 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > David,
> > > > > Interestingly, the stated dpi for the IXIA is only 300.  I
> > tried going to
> > > > the
> > > > > 'specs list', and the page loaded as code.  IXIA is not very
> > impressive,
> > > > > despite
> > > > > their statement that the 'perceived' dpi is much greater.
> > Sounds to me like
> > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  ;-)
> > > >
> > > > If I'm not mistaken the Durst Lambda has a stated dpi of 300 (or
> > 400?) and
> > > > it's really continuous tone for all practical purposes, so I
> > think "stated"
> > > > dpi is one of those misleading specs (dare I say, marketing ploys
> > ;-)) in
> > > > this industry. Consider also that the stated dpi is the same for
> > an Epson
> > > > 3000 as it is for a 1270, but their output is miles apart.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > >
> > > Todd,
> > > Is the 'Durst Lambda' a photo output device, as compared to an
> > inkjet device?
> > >
> > > And if 300 dpi inkjet output was so great and 'invisible' why is it
> > that
> > > *nobody* prints out at that gross a (inkjet dot , not pixel)
> > resolution?
> > >
> > > And the fact that even you acknowledge that there is a difference
> > in the output
> > > quality of an Epson 3000 vs 1270 shows that a change in picoliter
> > droplet size
> > > can be perceived.
> > >
> > > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "dellaellingson" <dellaellingson@y...> wrote:
> Harvey,
> 
> You are missing some of the unobvious. EPSON printers do not print pixels. They print dots of ink which are created by the image file which is RIP processed by either EPSON driver software or another RIP. The data that is printed is dot placement data.
> 
> IRIS files are pixel files which interleave the 4 colors. The data sent to the printer is a pixel of color. The IRIS printer images the pixel onto the paper by filling it in with dots of ink. A single pixel can be printed with many as 124 drops of ink.
> 
> I believe that you think there are more similarities than exist in a reality with these different technology.
> 
> Yes of course you can print on any paper you intend with an EPSON. What I attempted to illustrate is that an EPSON needs a coating in order to promote a good color gamut. The IRIS is able to print dots of ink the size of 93 picolitres when it requires great depth of color. This the EPSON can not do. A coating will promote better color depth on the EPSON. Do you see what I mean now?
> 
> Harvey, you must give this process another try. I think that you have concluded a judgement based on an experience which was not favorable. You must not let a disappointing experience allow you to judge the entire medium. What would happen if someone viewed a substandard EPSON print and judged us all so?  Do you want me to e-mail you transposed notes of the IRIS Graphics process? It is very unusual. I will if you like.
> 
> -Della
> 

Della,

They sure seem pretty similar to me.  Both Epson Printers and IRIS Printers are inkjet
technology that place variable number and size ink drops on paper to simulate a continuous
tone image.

In both cases there is a pixel based image which is the data file.
In both cases there is software that processes the data, converting it into many ink drops
that give the illusion of continuous tone.  For the Epson its the driver, the Piezo driver or
an external RIP package.  For the IRIS its the Graphics processor.
In both cases the hardware squirts out many more dots (ink drops) compared to the
number of pixels in the original data.

Granted there's many ways the processing software can work.  It could be half-tone based,
stochastic processing or diffusion dither.  They all have advantages and disadvantages
but they are all after the same goal -- converting continuous tone pixel data into
printer dots that give the illusion of continuous tone.

Roy

BTW, I'd be interested in the notes you have for the IRIS Graphics if you wouldn't
mind emailing them to me.

Thanks,
Roy