Digital BW, The Print

Take a look at this link. It's to Jon Cone's media kit for PMA
http://www.piezography.com/media/PMA-2003-Media-Kit.pdf
You will see that their new system is based on the Cannon printers 
and not Epson. The reason for this change seems to stem around the 
fact that the Cannon has a user replacable head. In other words, Jon 
Cone is expecting his inks to clog the head to the point were it 
will need rep[lacing. I can't imagine that its a cheap replacement. 
What do you think?

Barry

> Take a look at this link. It's to Jon Cone's media kit for PMA
> http://www.piezography.com/media/PMA-2003-Media-Kit.pdf
> You will see that their new system is based on the Cannon printers
> and not Epson. The reason for this change seems to stem around the
> fact that the Cannon has a user replacable head. In other words, Jon
> Cone is expecting his inks to clog the head to the point were it
> will need rep[lacing. I can't imagine that its a cheap replacement.
> What do you think?

I am certainly not selling my TWO Epson 3000s that work fine just to use his
replacement software!

I believe I'm not a customer of theirs for, at least, the near future.

Austin

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: flyfishingusa2002 <tflyfish@...> 
> [mailto:tflyfish@...] 
> Verzonden: zaterdag 1 maart 2003 15:09
> Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: [Digital BW] Jon Cone's new B/W system FYI
> 
> 
> Take a look at this link. It's to Jon Cone's media kit for 
> PMA http://www.piezography.com/media/PMA-2003-Media-Kit.pdf
> You will see that their new system is based on the Cannon printers 
> and not Epson. The reason for this change seems to stem around the 
> fact that the Cannon has a user replacable head. In other words, Jon 
> Cone is expecting his inks to clog the head to the point were it 
> will need rep[lacing. I can't imagine that its a cheap replacement. 
> What do you think?

What I think? I think you didn't read the article well... (or you can't
stand the fact that Epson is no longer the self-evident #1 choice).
The reason for the change is (according to John Cone):
- Canon printers are *way* faster
- The replacable head is is a *great* feature for changing between B/W
and colour
- The repacable head is *way* easier to clean, just in plain ordianary
water

BTW, he announces the same system for Epson! (maybe it will take some
more time, Epson printers are notorious for clogging..)

Ton - bought recently a Canon S900 and am a happy camper- Guiking

I think it would be more fair to accept Mr. Cone's explanation in the 
materials that, (1) if you do get a clog, it's a lot simpler to just remove 
a Canon head and flush it under warm water than to clear a clog from an 
Epson head, and (2) the availability of separate heads for Canon printers 
means users can have one loaded with color inks and another with Piezo 
inks, and do both color and B&W on the same printer with just a head swap 
(which takes about 5 seconds once the head carriage has moved into the 
center of the printer.)

As to (1), having cleared several nozzle clogs in a Canon 9000 printhead by 
rinsing the head under running water (and this is with dye only inks) I can 
confirm that it's a trivial exercise compared to the ammonia-soaked paper 
towel procedures that are mentioned regularly in these pages for dealing 
with Epson clogs.

As to (2), this is the reason I bought a Canon 9000 last year, although 
Canon has just recently released the printheads for separate sale (my photo 
shop says they can get them for $125 each.)  I do confess I don't know how 
well the heads will do loaded with ink but not sitting on the printer - I 
understand Epson printers have a cap of some sort that seals up the print 
nozzles when the head is parked, in order to keep them from drying out.  It 
remains to be seen if something similar will be needed for an unmounted but 
inked Canon head in order to keep it ready to print immediately upon 
installation.  I'm prepared to keep one sealed in a plastic bag with a wet 
sponge inside if necessary.

I took up digital photography (after 40+ years of B&W in a darkroom) only 
after determining that it might be possible to do quality B&W work 
digitally.  I started with the original Piezo inks in an Epson 860.  But I 
didn't do my homework well enough, and was disappointed to discover that 
those inks only worked on matte papers whereas I wanted to do 
glossies.  And the speed of the 860 was way too slow to do what I needed - 
which is about 800 8x10s at Christmas time.  I didn't have the discipline 
to start early in the fall in order to get it all done by Christmas Eve.

The speed of the Canon 9000 and its ability to do adequate (barely) B&W 
8x10s in around 2 minutes is what got me through this last Christmas 
season.  Now the availability of Piezo and the recent release of Lyson Quad 
Black inks for the Canon make serious B&W on glossy stock possible.

So I for one am delighted to see this new direction for Mr. Cone's efforts.

Cheers,
Kip

At 3/1/2003 02:08 PM +0000, you wrote:

>Take a look at this link. It's to Jon Cone's media kit for PMA
>http://www.piezography.com/media/PMA-2003-Media-Kit.pdf
>You will see that their new system is based on the Cannon printers
>and not Epson. The reason for this change seems to stem around the
>fact that the Cannon has a user replacable head. In other words, Jon
>Cone is expecting his inks to clog the head to the point were it
>will need rep[lacing. I can't imagine that its a cheap replacement.
>What do you think?
>
>Barry

> You will see that their new system is based on the Cannon printers 
> and not Epson.

From the pdf:

"The new profiling system will allow the Company to also produce an 
inexpensive black & white inkjet system that will take advantage of 
the 7 ink positions of the EPSON 2200, 7600 and 9600 printers to 
produce more than one tone and to produce split-toning."

Dan

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Kip Babington [mailto:cbabing3@...] 
> Verzonden: zaterdag 1 maart 2003 15:45
> Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] Jon Cone's new B/W system FYI

> 
> 
> I think it would be more fair to accept Mr. Cone's explanation in the 
> materials that, 

(....)

> 
> So I for one am delighted to see this new direction for Mr. 
> Cone's efforts.
> 
> Cheers,
> Kip
> 

Amen, brother!
Ton Guiking

Are print head clogs really so common?   I've owned 
several Epson printers over the years and a couple of HP's.
I only use the manufacturer-supplied ink.   I currently have 
two Epsons, a 2200 and an 870.  I often go for weeks
without printing.

I have NEVER had a significant clog.   The worst clog
I ever had was with my 870 and it took 3 head-cleaning
cycles to clear and it was MY fault, because I left the
printer powered up for a week without using it once.  
(turning off the printer parks the heads properly so 
they're less likely to dry out).

So what's the deal with clogs - have I just been lucky
or is it something to do with third-party inks?   Why 
would third-party inks be any more likely to clog than
manufacturers' inks?   I keep seeing people here talking 
about print head clogging but I don't understand why 
that seems so common.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington 
<cbabing3@s...> wrote:

> I think it would be more fair to accept Mr. Cone's explanation
> in the materials that, (1) if you do get a clog, it's a lot
> simpler to just remove a Canon head and flush it under warm
> water than to clear a clog from an Epson head

Peter,

> Are print head clogs really so common?

With the original Cone quadtone inks, yes, very.

Austin

Is their anyone on this list that leaves their epson printer on all the 
time? I believe the "turn your printer off or they will dry up" is an 
old wives tale now probably based on drivers from days of old. I think 
epsons nowadays always have their pads parked when not printing. But I 
would be happy to know for sure if anyone can tell me.

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson <
peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:

> Are print head clogs really so common?   I've owned 
> several Epson printers over the years and a couple of HP's.
> I only use the manufacturer-supplied ink.   I currently have 
> two Epsons, a 2200 and an 870.  I often go for weeks
> without printing.
> 
> I have NEVER had a significant clog.   The worst clog
> I ever had was with my 870 and it took 3 head-cleaning
> cycles to clear and it was MY fault, because I left the
> printer powered up for a week without using it once.  
> (turning off the printer parks the heads properly so 
> they're less likely to dry out).
> 
> So what's the deal with clogs - have I just been lucky
> or is it something to do with third-party inks?   Why 
> would third-party inks be any more likely to clog than
> manufacturers' inks?   I keep seeing people here talking 
> about print head clogging but I don't understand why 
> that seems so common.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington 
> <cbabing3@s...> wrote:
> > I think it would be more fair to accept Mr. Cone's explanation
> > in the materials that, (1) if you do get a clog, it's a lot
> > simpler to just remove a Canon head and flush it under warm
> > water than to clear a clog from an Epson head

MH,

> Is their anyone on this list that leaves their epson printer on all the
> time?

I do.

> I believe the "turn your printer off or they will dry up" is an
> old wives tale now probably based on drivers from days of old.

Not on drivers, but on printer design.  The new printers "cap" the heads
when not in use, even though the power is still on.

> I think
> epsons nowadays always have their pads parked when not printing. But I
> would be happy to know for sure if anyone can tell me.

You can take a look inside.  I know the 3000 and 1160 do, and I certainly
would believe anything later than those two would as well.

Regards,

Austin

I never turn off my 1280 and never had clog problems using MIS FSN
ink. I guess leaving it on is just habit from laser days and dot
matrix before that. 
Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mh <mh@t...>"
<mh@t...> wrote:

> Is their anyone on this list that leaves their epson printer on all the 
> time? I believe the "turn your printer off or they will dry up" is an 
> old wives tale now probably based on drivers from days of old. I think 
> epsons nowadays always have their pads parked when not printing. But I 
> would be happy to know for sure if anyone can tell me.
> 
> -mh
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson <
> peter@s...>" <peter@s...> wrote:
> > Are print head clogs really so common?   I've owned 
> > several Epson printers over the years and a couple of HP's.
> > I only use the manufacturer-supplied ink.   I currently have 
> > two Epsons, a 2200 and an 870.  I often go for weeks
> > without printing.
> > 
> > I have NEVER had a significant clog.   The worst clog
> > I ever had was with my 870 and it took 3 head-cleaning
> > cycles to clear and it was MY fault, because I left the
> > printer powered up for a week without using it once.  
> > (turning off the printer parks the heads properly so 
> > they're less likely to dry out).
> > 
> > So what's the deal with clogs - have I just been lucky
> > or is it something to do with third-party inks?   Why 
> > would third-party inks be any more likely to clog than
> > manufacturers' inks?   I keep seeing people here talking 
> > about print head clogging but I don't understand why 
> > that seems so common.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kip Babington 
> > <cbabing3@s...> wrote:
> > > I think it would be more fair to accept Mr. Cone's explanation
> > > in the materials that, (1) if you do get a clog, it's a lot
> > > simpler to just remove a Canon head and flush it under warm
> > > water than to clear a clog from an Epson head

It sounds to me like Cone's new system is doing exactly what Paul Roark has
been doing for years, but instead of using Photoshop curves, his adjustments
are made in ICC profiles and, of course, only available for his inks.

I find his comments on his new PiezoGloss paper interesting too: "It is a
high gloss surface after printing and this is going to be very popular with
those looking for gloss.  But the paper only glosses with the PiezoTone
formulation for Canon."

--Tom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mh <mh@t...>" 
<mh@t...> wrote:
> Is their anyone on this list that leaves their epson printer on all 
the 
> time? I believe the "turn your printer off or they will dry up" is 
an 
> old wives tale now probably based on drivers from days of old. I 
think 
> epsons nowadays always have their pads parked when not printing. 
But I 
> would be happy to know for sure if anyone can tell me.

All I can say is that ever since that time, I always turn
off my 870 except when actually printing - and I print 
even less frequently that ever on it because I mostly use
my 2200) and I've had only one small clog, that
cleared with a single cleaning cycle, since then.

> Is their anyone on this list that leaves their epson printer on all
the time?

My 2100 has been on since I bought it last october. Never had any
problems.

Saturday, March 1, 2003, 6:39:31 AM, Ton Guiking wrote:

TG> What I think? I think you didn't read the article well... (or you can't
TG> stand the fact that Epson is no longer the self-evident #1 choice).
TG> The reason for the change is (according to John Cone):


I think you may not be familiar with Jon's penchant for hype and spin.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

L i n k s  t o  m y  g a l l e r i e s:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Fors" <
tom@f...> wrote:
> It sounds to me like Cone's new system is doing exactly what Paul Roark has
> been doing for years, but instead of using Photoshop curves, his adjustments
> are made in ICC profiles and, of course, only available for his inks.

Yes, but I thought everyone here agreed a long time ago that that sort 
of thing was not possible to do using ICC profiles. Does anyone here 
want to guess as to how it was done and why nobody came up with it 
earlier?


> I find his comments on his new PiezoGloss paper interesting too: "It is a
> high gloss surface after printing and this is going to be very popular with
> those looking for gloss.  But the paper only glosses with the PiezoTone
> formulation for Canon."
> 
> --Tom

Yes, I think we are all interested in this. I am hesitant to believe 
that there are not downsides to this though. My guess is there is 
either a high dye percentage of some sort, or the paper itself is doing 
something funky. We will have to test that combo extra carefully.

-mh

Tom,

> I find his comments on his new PiezoGloss paper interesting too: "It is a
> high gloss surface after printing and this is going to be very
> popular with
> those looking for gloss.  But the paper only glosses with the PiezoTone
> formulation for Canon."

Er, huh?  Either the paper is glossy or not.  The paper doesn't get every
square nano-micron hit with ink...so I'm not clear how that would be
possible.  Is this saying that it's the ink that glosses, and the white
areas of the paper don't gloss?  That would look weird!

Austin

It is "PiezoGloss" paper that only remains glossy with Canon Piezotone 
ink.  Epson piezotone ink will exhibit the buffing/powder coat that it 
does on all the other glossy papers. Which I guess indicates that there 
is something funky going on with the Canon version. I hope they have 
fully tested whatever that funkiness is for proper archival properties.

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> > I find his comments on his new PiezoGloss paper interesting too: "It is a
> > high gloss surface after printing and this is going to be very
> > popular with
> > those looking for gloss.  But the paper only glosses with the PiezoTone
> > formulation for Canon."
> 
> Er, huh?  Either the paper is glossy or not.  The paper doesn't get every
> square nano-micron hit with ink...so I'm not clear how that would be
> possible.  Is this saying that it's the ink that glosses, and the white
> areas of the paper don't gloss?  That would look weird!
> 
> Austin

So, the paper IS glossy to start with, right?  If it IS glossy to start
with, then it should remain glossy after being printed...  I'm not clear on
how this supposedly works.  If you, or someone else can 'splain it, I'd
appreciate it.

Austin

> It is "PiezoGloss" paper that only remains glossy with Canon Piezotone
> ink.  Epson piezotone ink will exhibit the buffing/powder coat that it
> does on all the other glossy papers. Which I guess indicates that there
> is something funky going on with the Canon version. I hope they have
> fully tested whatever that funkiness is for proper archival properties.
>
> -mh
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > > I find his comments on his new PiezoGloss paper interesting
> too: "It is a
> > > high gloss surface after printing and this is going to be very
> > > popular with
> > > those looking for gloss.  But the paper only glosses with the
> PiezoTone
> > > formulation for Canon."
> >
> > Er, huh?  Either the paper is glossy or not.  The paper doesn't
> get every
> > square nano-micron hit with ink...so I'm not clear how that would be
> > possible.  Is this saying that it's the ink that glosses, and the white
> > areas of the paper don't gloss?  That would look weird!
> >
> > Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> So, the paper IS glossy to start with, right?  If it IS glossy to 
start
> with, then it should remain glossy after being printed...  I'm not 
clear on
> how this supposedly works.  If you, or someone else can 'splain it, 
I'd
> appreciate it.
> 
> Austin

I think what he's trying to say is that it's glossy to start
with, but a normal ink would UNgloss it, however the new ink
allows it to remain glossy where it is applied.<P>

Personally, I don't care - I prefer matte papers but I
think that's what they're trying to say.

> I think you may not be familiar with Jon's penchant for hype and spin.
>
> Best regards,
>  Richard

You mean he's a salesman... :-)  Artists beware - it's known how gullible
you (we?) are....!

> I am certainly not selling my TWO Epson 3000s that work fine just 
to use his
> replacement software!
> 
> I believe I'm not a customer of theirs for, at least, the near 
future.
> 
> Austin

Austin, it works with any printer driver. To quote Jon:

"The new PiezographyBW does not use any proprietary printer drivers,
software, or file formats.

The new PiezographyBW is ICC compliant and works with any software 
which can open and print a grayscale image.

We have invented a new type of (industry standard) ICC printer 
profiling application that allows us to produce ICC printer profiles 
which are specifically oriented to monochromatic inks and the 
standard OEM printer driver."

Nowhere does he say that Epson printers are not supported. They 
are. They have ADDED Canon, not deleted Epson.

--Eddy McDonald

On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:41:50PM -0000, Eddy <eddy@...> wrote:
> > I am certainly not selling my TWO Epson 3000s that work fine just 
> to use his
> > replacement software!
> > 
> > I believe I'm not a customer of theirs for, at least, the near 
> future.
> > 
> > Austin
> 
> Austin, it works with any printer driver. To quote Jon:
> 
> "The new PiezographyBW does not use any proprietary printer drivers,
> software, or file formats.
> 
> The new PiezographyBW is ICC compliant and works with any software 
> which can open and print a grayscale image.
> 
> We have invented a new type of (industry standard) ICC printer 
> profiling application that allows us to produce ICC printer profiles 
> which are specifically oriented to monochromatic inks and the 
> standard OEM printer driver."
> 
> Nowhere does he say that Epson printers are not supported. They 
> are. They have ADDED Canon, not deleted Epson.
> 

The thing is that the 3000 droplet size is huge if you use the Epson driver.
The old piezo software had it's own dither pattern which overrode the Epson
driver and improved matters considerably. If the new product is reverting to
and relying on Epson drivers then the 3000 is probably not going to produce 
good results.

But I think we're all running ahead of ourselves here are we not? Let's at
least see the product before passing judgement!


-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...

That, and the fact that one will have to buy the "system" (ie the 
profiles) for $175 which Austin probably won't do since the plugin 
works fine (and, as said below, much better than the epson driver)

Is there going to be an upgrade for registered users of the plugin I 
would like to know? Does Jon read this list at all?

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tony Terlecki <
ajt@m...> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:41:50PM -0000, Eddy <eddy@f...> wrote:
> > > I am certainly not selling my TWO Epson 3000s that work fine just 
> > to use his
> > > replacement software!
> > > 
> > > I believe I'm not a customer of theirs for, at least, the near 
> > future.
> > > 
> > > Austin
> > 
> > Austin, it works with any printer driver. To quote Jon:
> > 
> > "The new PiezographyBW does not use any proprietary printer drivers,
> > software, or file formats.
> > 
> > The new PiezographyBW is ICC compliant and works with any software 
> > which can open and print a grayscale image.
> > 
> > We have invented a new type of (industry standard) ICC printer 
> > profiling application that allows us to produce ICC printer profiles 
> > which are specifically oriented to monochromatic inks and the 
> > standard OEM printer driver."
> > 
> > Nowhere does he say that Epson printers are not supported. They 
> > are. They have ADDED Canon, not deleted Epson.
> > 
> 
> The thing is that the 3000 droplet size is huge if you use the Epson driver.
> The old piezo software had it's own dither pattern which overrode the Epson
> driver and improved matters considerably. If the new product is reverting to
> and relying on Epson drivers then the 3000 is probably not going to produce 
> good results.
> 
> But I think we're all running ahead of ourselves here are we not? Let's at
> least see the product before passing judgement!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tony Terlecki
> ajt@m...

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: mh <mh@...> [mailto:mh@...] 
> Verzonden: zondag 2 maart 2003 0:59
> Aan: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [Digital BW] Jon Cone's new B/W system FYI
> 
>(...) 


> Is there going to be an upgrade for registered users of the plugin I 
> would like to know? 

Then read the article, and you'll see:
"The Company now plans to completely reincarnate their
PieographyBW for EPSON products. An upgrade for more than 4,000 users of
that system is planned
for April."
So the answer seems to be YES.
Best,
Ton Guiking

on 3/1/2003 8:45 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> The thing is that the 3000 droplet size is huge if you use the Epson driver.
> The old piezo software had it's own dither pattern which overrode the Epson
> driver and improved matters considerably. If the new product is reverting to
> and relying on Epson drivers then the 3000 is probably not going to produce
> good results.
> 
> But I think we're all running ahead of ourselves here are we not? Let's at
> least see the product before passing judgement!

I think the press release made it pretty clear.  This product consists of
Paul's curves (or similar) converted to ICC profiles for easy application.
If paul's curves work for the Epson 3000, I would think that these ICC
profiles should work about the same. And I've seen some of Paul's prints
from his 3000 with the VM inks and they are stunning, Epson driver and all.

 
-Bruce

A lot has been written on the Canon shift/addition. One of the
things that has not been mentioned is that Canon is top in the
digital camera world too. That will affect the sale of Canon
printers especially with some of the fast direct camera>print
solutions that are already marketed by Canon. Epson has similar
solutions but no digital camera reputation that can be compared
to Canon's.

The Epson third party ink/cart market has a lot of competition
meanwhile, the much smaller B&W market for Epson is full of
competition.
Cone, MIS, Lyson not to mention the software manufacturers.

Cone has the new profiling software, that is the real key in his
concept till someone figures out that something like that already
exists (maybe the "Rich Grey" profile ?) or is not that difficult
to make.

There are some Canon printer specs that are better, practice will
show whether there are also flaws in using Canon printers in B&W
printing.

In general Canon adapts its marketing concept faster to the
changed circumstances. Less obsessed with ink selling than HP.
Epson etc, they introduced the first printers with an ink cart
per colour. However the price of an extra head quoted at 150 $
makes me wonder if an extra printer isn't the better choice. An
Epson 9000 head is cheaper but takes a lot more time to replace
:-)

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce <
smthopr@e...> wrote:
snip...
...This product consists of
> Paul's curves (or similar) converted to ICC profiles for easy application.

Ridiculous. Nothing against Paul and his hard work, but people have 
been making curves for the Epson driver and various other drivers for 
years. They could be Culbertson's, or Randall's, or even mine, or 
someone else's who doesn't bother to spend time on lists.
Some have even been utilizing profiles to make them, and even 
incorporating them into profiles. I'd send you one I made before there 
was ever a Piezography product, but who has ther time for this kind of 
dialogue?
In fact they are not likely to be anyone's, but based on whatever they 
come up with there.
Pretty well priced too. I'd say it just might work. As with all things, 
most of us will wait for somebody else to take the plunge and let us 
know. Then complain some more.
Tyler

on 3/2/03 1:03 PM, Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:

> In fact they are not likely to be anyone's, but based on whatever they
> come up with there.
> Pretty well priced too. I'd say it just might work. As with all things,
> most of us will wait for somebody else to take the plunge and let us
> know. Then complain some more.

But let us rejoice in the blessing that this media blurb was released before
any output could be seen! Thus we can dismiss it out of hand before ANYONE
has to try it.

It's unbelievable, isn't it? We mope around bitching about clogs, the cost
of RIPs, the slow output, the fades, the need to create paper specific
monitor previews, yadda yadda yadda, then when Cone answers the call with
something that sounds good, cheap, and easy, he's dissed?

Sheesh...

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, TF <tflash@e...> 
wrote:
...
> It's unbelievable, isn't it? We mope around bitching about clogs, the cost
> of RIPs, the slow output, the fades, the need to create paper specific
> monitor previews, yadda yadda yadda, then when Cone answers the call with
> something that sounds good, cheap, and easy, he's dissed?
> 
> Sheesh...
> 
> Todd

Right, he seems to sort of like it though, don't you think?
Wait untill someone buys in, then has some problems, yikes!
Tyler

On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 12:04  PM, TF wrote:
> then when Cone answers the call with
> something that sounds good, cheap, and easy, he's dissed?

well of course T, always a conspiracy, remember?
C

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TF [mailto:tflash@...] 
<SNIP>
> But let us rejoice in the blessing that this media blurb was 
> released before
> any output could be seen!
<SNIP>

This is a good point, which reminds me of another point:  Did he show
any examples of this at the show?  Did anybody see anything?  Usually,
whenever I go to a tradeshow there's always some samples there to wow
and impress people.  Anything here?

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

flyfishingusa2002 wrote:

>Take a look at this link. It's to Jon Cone's media kit for PMA
>http://www.piezography.com/media/PMA-2003-Media-Kit.pdf
>You will see that their new system is based on the Cannon printers 
>and not Epson. The reason for this change seems to stem around the 
>fact that the Cannon has a user replacable head. 
>
Of course there is a SMALL problem with this...

Currently Canon does not SELL replacement printheads for a particular 
printer model UNTIL the first units of that printer have moved past the 
one year warranty point.  As an example, they only recently began 
offering replacement printheads for the S900 and S9000 (released about a 
year ago)...

Unless Canon changes that policy,. there won't be available replacement 
heads for the i950 and i9100 until February and April of next year..
Keith

 

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/
 
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"




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