Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:
...
> Pretty damning actually.

I honestly didn't mean it to be. I'm pleased there are many more
options for people than there used to be and certainly things have
progressed a lot. This will aork for many.

...
> The one thing I will ask is did you use the different linearizations
> for the multi dot size with the x600, or just a single dot size for
> that print? I'm assuming that you used v12 to print it, or are you
> still using the older version of the RIP? (Yes I think I've paid
> attention to your hardware/software)

yes, it was v12 with some amount of variable dot, but primarily 100%
micro in all positions, so in that sense similar to previous versions.
I assume the RGB driver output was completely variable dot.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
...
> Are you planning to come back here at some point with a similar
> comparison using the new 3800?  I'm really eager to see if that new
> dither will make much difference.

if someone wants to send me one and tell my clients to hold off for a
bit while I do the tests, dandy! But I have to say, my first thought
is, if the dither is way better imagine what prints from it with a
bunch of Ks and grays would look like <G>.
Seriously, I'm looking for photographic output here. I suspect some
people don't know what that is. Ever seen, say, an Emmit Gowan contact
8x10 print? Again, this has nothing to do with subjective
expectations. In fact, I'm very aware of your thoughts on coverage and
they came to mind again doing this. I've never criticized them and
consider them valid, just subjective.

Tom and Steve, yes ABW and UCK3 RIP output would have been interesting
too. So would all of them done at 2880, other RIPs, K7s, other
settings, but I'm not the consumer reports department... I got the
information I needed from the test I did. The rest, well, I see output
of all kinds here almost every day. I'm happy to make anyone any kind
of print they want to pay for. It's obvious what is best here, to the
naked eye. I wanted this example to be on the list and in the
archives, amongst the confounding amount of posts to the contrary
here. I'm not that interested in becoming an evangelist, despite
unfortunate tendencies towards self righteousness. Also, I've said
nothing about aesthetics, which prints just tend to be more pleasing.
Talent has a lot to do with this stuff.

Regarding many of the other objections, I think I anticipated most or
all of them in my initial comments.

There are many other posts here, serious posts, that I am frankly at a
complete loss as to how to address. I don't know how productive it
would be either, other than to defend my honor or some such BS.

One thing I would like to say though, not for me. The implication that
a certain luminary was absent at a recent trade show was somehow sad,
or indicative of anything at all, is irresponsible and badly intended.
I don't think he was at the same show the previous year either, though
he was at others, including Photokina I believe. They've always
skipped the occasional trade fiasco, many smaller companies do. To my
knowledge all is well, and compelling and evolving as usual, but it's
none of my business.

The test prints I scanned have gone to two different members of this
community I and others respect. They can comment or not, maybe they
don't care to jump in the same pile I did. The rest, I'll think on it,
but life is short. Mostly there is far too much use of the word I in
this post...
Tyler