Digital BW, The Print

David,
Am I reading into this or does the price upset you?

By all user reports the gamut *is* supposed to be *much* better than *all* other
pigment inks.

The metamerism has been reported to be '1' on a scale of 1 to 10, whereas
Epson's OEM pigments are an '8'.

The reds *are* reported to be much better.

They are supposed to be more stable than any of the other inks out there.

There are *NO*, I repeat *NO* reports of clogs.  They have been made to go
through Iris printers, which have notoriously small jets prone to clogging.

Are you missing something?...I don't know.

Are they worth it?  Only you can decide for yourself, but they sound good to me.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




david_nancy_bogart wrote:

>  I've just compared the price of a 16 oz bottle of Indelibles which
> is listed at $100, versus a 16 oz bottle of MIS Archival for $48.
> Does this mean the Indelible will last twice as long? Is the red
> twice as bright? Twice the gamut? Half the metamerism? Half
> the clogs? Will I be twice as happy? Somehow I don't think so.
>
> Am I missing something or is this another example of how
> desperately we are searching for the holy grail?
>
> David
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Jerry,
> > It's all relative, but I suppose so.
> >
> > For more info on them:
> > http://www.mandmstudios.com/inkjet.html
> > or
> > Jim Robbins at All Square  (actjimrobbins@a...)
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> >
> >
> > >  Hi Harvey,
> > >
> > > Are the indelibles those really pricy inks?
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SKID Photography wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jerry,
> > > > I know that feeling of going crazy and wanting to be done
> with it.  We have
> > > sort
> > > > of done the same thing in deciding to go with the
> Indelibles. (Before you
> > > > ask...We have not taken delivery of our Epson 7000 and
> therefore have not
> > > tried
> > > > the Indelibles on B&W images yet).
> >


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