Digital BW, The Print

Walker, you made some important observations in your post. And I think Tyler's side-by-
side comparison makes a much needed point. I am still very excited about the new 
printers, particularly because the years of efforts by Cone, Roark, and others pointed the 
big three printer companies in the direction of multiple K dilutions. I think this can only 
help our search for even more satisfying photographic methods of output. Up till now, the 
answer to "Which printer should I buy?" inolved the letters E-P-S-O-N. I love their 
machines (most of the time) and God knows I've invested large amounts of time and 
money in their hardware over the years. But what the new entries signal to me is the 
potential for more targeted approaches, even within the fine art printmaker market. 
Company A might have the best solution for, say reasonably lightfast glossy output. 
Another company's offerings may be more appropriate for the most stable matte output. 
You get the idea. Of course, the better the big companies get at "good enough", the 
smaller the market for innovative third parties. 
But since many on this list are printmakers concerned with a level of quality and detail that 
is sometimes lost on clients, the question becomes how do we remain relevant? What can 
we provide that a credit card and a trip to B&H can't supply? In some cases, nothing. And 
that requires an adjustment of our target market and marketing approach. 
But here's what I see for the future, and why I'm so excited about the emergence of all 
these new printers. Tyler uses setup XYZ to produce the stunning prints that seem to leave 
his studio like water down a falls. Walker uses setup ABC which fulfills his and his clients' 
aesthetics. John Dean uses yet another system, etc, etc. I think this is where we ultimately 
need to be. Right now, those of us using quads are doing so because no matter the 
content we are printing, they offer demonstrable differences. 
Epsons are a known quantity. Time will tell how the Canon and HP OEM solutions stack up. 
But I hope that as the technology matures, there are primarily aesthetic, rather than 
technical and longevity differences among third party and OEM offerings. Then we can all 
put the ones and zeros back where they belong, completely at the service of our 
photogrpahic vision. Right now a lot of us are using the same tools and still printing 
unique output. Imagine when the tools become more, not less specialized? Are we there 
yet? Likely not, but that's what I want to see in the next few years.

amadou diallo
www.diallophotography.com