Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 05:50 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > On 7/5/03 Phong wrote: > >> On the other hand, much of the reputation (and industry test >> results) was based on the Sundance formula, now sold thru >> bwguys.com. >> >> I am looking to buy an Epson 3000 myself, and am quite confused >> by the situation. If you were to get into Piezography now, >> which of the 2 companies would you go with, and why ? >> Anybody wants to shed anylight on this ? Unless you really need the extra paper size of the 3000, I would avoid it and go with the 1280. The 3000 is a wonderful machine but there have been problems using the pigment quad-black inks in it; apparently there is a question of tolerances which are adequate for the Epson dye inks, but Piezography users fell into two distinct camps - those who swear by it (Tina!, Austin?), and those who swear AT it. Adam's problem with the greenish cast from the 1280 is CAUSED by the continuous ink system. Apparently there can be a chemical reaction between the inks and the sponges in the ink reservoirs. I had this using a pair of 1160s (ditch one, buy another, what the heck!). I am currently using the 1280 with the Sundance inks in cartridges, more expensive, but stable and hassle free (with occasional clogs, though the current Sundance inks have been improved somewhat and are available in both warm and cool varieties). The R9 ImageExportBW plugin from bwguys.com, formerly known as PiezographyBW (InkjetMall), now runs native in Mac OS X. The best news is that both the inks and the software are available from the LUG's own Rich Pinto at PhotoVillage. Rich also does wide-format printing on the Epson 9000 using the R9 software and Sundance inks, so,for me, this is another reason not to spend several hundred dollars on the only marginally wider Epson 3000. Get the 1280! It's plug & play, runs NATIVE under OS X, repeat, NATIVE, and you can deal with someone we've come to know and trust (though I have ordered inks from the bwguys.com website, and though the site is flakey, the inks showed up on my doorstop in 48 hours without exorbitant shipping costs). Regarding the 2200: there is no finer desktop printer for color. But I spent hours with a spectro colorimiter creating profiles for each of my papers and I can print black and white that looks dead neutral under the lights in my room. But ONLY under the lights in my room :( I can also make prints that look dead neutral under window light, but they look magenta when the sun goes down. This is called metamerism, and there is no solution to the problem short of switching to an all black inkset. Sundance/R9 has such an inkset coming out for the 2200 and the wide format printers - it uses 7 inks: black, 3 warm-neutral grays, 3 cool-neutral grays - mix and match them (!), but it requires a dedicated Windoz computer to run the RIP. Don't ask me to go there... So there you have it. If you want the results in black and white, buy the 1280, the ImageExportBW software, and the somewhat expensive Sundance inks in cartridges. If you want glorious archival color prints, buy the Epson 2200, get a Spyder and calibrate and profile your monitor and use the Epson inks and papers. If you want really big prints, proof them at 13 X 19 and then send a file out to Rich or the service bureau of your choice. Gilbert (who's been there, done that, and found what works for him) > Well I have to agree with you about the design/implimentation of the > web sites. > They are prime examples of how to obscure rather than inform. If they > aren't > winners of the worst-designed-website they will be soon. > > I have a continuous inking system for my Epson 1280. Over the past > year I have > become less and less pleased with it: it began to develop a greenish > cast to the > printing and then the system's ability to give full-range results > began to get > worse and worse: the Sundance inks were going bad. > > So I have had to invest in a new set of inks and a new print head for > my Epson. > Now I have to clean and flush the tubing and re-load the inks. It was > expensive. > > However...when it was printing well the results were super....better > than the > 2200's images that sits beside it (in black and white of course). I > find the > 2200 has a distinct color-cast associated with it that I dislike. > > Also, the Piezography system uses drivers for the printer from > photoshop (using > the Export dialog) that are not compatible with OS X - so I have to run > Photoshop 6 in classic to print. I don't like doing that so I'd like > to try this > new/improved (hahaha) method that uses paper/printer profiles to do > the same > thing. You may recall I asked about that on this list a week or so > ago. I gather > that they are STILL in beta after promising to have a release in the > April/May > time frame. I'm not holding my breath. Fugetaboutit! If you're talking about a product from Cone, this has been promised since PMA 2002! And Mr. Cone has created a lot of bad blood with both BW Guys and his own retail distributors, think lawsuit! > So, I'm confused also, I have hardware, I have to deal with the > screwed-up inks > that they originally sold and replaced at my own expense (oh, wait, > they every > so nicely gave me a 10% discount). > > When it last worked properly, however, the results were fantastic. > > Adam > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html