Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 3rd party ink experiences with 1200 and other antique ink machines
> (1280/1270) are irrelevant to 2200 and more modern pigment machines. 
> 
> 2200 requires much finer particle size and 3rd party inks commonly
> clog it...some users have good luck, some don't...probably has to do
> with erratic quality of all 3rd party inks (regularly reported with
> MIS and Piezo and various cheapo Vs Epson pigments). 
> 

I would simply repeat the last paragraph of my post. It has more to do
with careful thought and application. As regards OEM, they were Not
the leaders in the B&W field with inks but rather the followers. Were
it not for this group, and in particular the few who dared that
application (I do not count myself among them.), the probabilities you
speak of are that you and all would still be using the old OEM ink
technology.
There is nothing exclusive about particle size and milling to match
machine requirements. The successful third party suppliers have paid
attention to those needs.

As for time and interest, it's a perfectly legitimate concern for
many. Not everyone, not even most, are willing or able to expend the
effort needed to experiment successfully. For those, waiting for OEMs
to bring things to market are an answer. Over most of the history of
photography there have been those who did not even do their own
processing and printing let alone experiment. There is nothing wrong
with that dichotomy but what is irrelevant are prejudicial statements
arguing against the other path. To be blunt, those who look for cheap
plug-n-play or to be on the leading edge, with no effort are
inevitably going to pay the price with disappointment of one sort or
another.

Regards
Duane