Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@...> 
wrote:
>
> I don't think there SHOULD be any difference at all if your
> linearization was well done and your specific paper curves produced.
> But like I said, these machines vary considerably from unit to unit.
> 
> From what I have heard the Cone people had better results with QTR
> than Studio Print with these inks. I'll try SP though but I have to
> buy a damn pc, might as well, I need it for QIMage anyway.
> 


I didn't mean to begin a contentious discussion when I offered my experience with older 
printers and QTR vs. StudioPrint. But on my machines I have found it far easier to get top 
quality results with StudioPrint than with QTR. In apples to apples comparisions (same 
printer, same inks, same paper, same image- different rips) I have found StudioPrint to 
produce better results that I could see. Not surprising given the huge price difference!

As Eric experienced, I was spending lots of time fooling around trying to determine ink 
limits that worked and getting disappointing results. With StudioPrint I get very fine results 
by using the defaults and linearizing from there. And if I have the time and tolerance for 
the process I can make use of Tyler's informative posts and fiddle with underprinting, 
variable dot sizes, blended inksets and all the rest.

And, if you don't want to buy a PC, you can get a newer Intel Mac and put Windows on that 
and run StudioPrint with Bootcamp. It's not a cheap alternative, but you can have a new 
Mac and run your Windows software too. I got a refurbed mini to run my printer and it 
works just fine via bootcamp.

But as you point out John, there are many ways to achieve a fine result, so go with the 
process that suits your working style, budget and technical needs. Just sharing my 
experiences.

Mark Stracke