Calzone
Gear Whore #1
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
I have to order more paper and ink after having bulked up on 330ml to start initially, mostly mid-tones, to keep stocked with ink. Ran through 400 ML gloss overcoat already and I'm on my second 400 ml. I had reordered 200 sheets of 8 1/2x11 Jon Cone Type 5, but I soon discovered that the prints really open up at 13x19. Oh-well. While Jone Cone's inks might be less expensive than Epson's OEM inks, my experience is that with Peizography you might be utilizing more ink to make a print. About every two weeks I've had to top up my carts to avoid the risk of an empty cart. Once came really close.
13x19 is a good size to print on 17x22 for exhibition prints because stock frame sizes are 18x24 that allows for exposing some additional border in a mat and then allow for a generous border generated by the matte. Printing a different size will require costly custom framing if exhibition is your goal. Dealers and collectors like generous boardes to allow for museum framing (archival).
I learned that air drying and printing the "Gloss Overcoat" 24 hours later instead of forced air drying for a few minutes provides a more satin/less glossy effect. My thinking is that the GO soakes more deeply into the paper when the print is fully dried buy the 24 hour wait. Also this seems to effect the contrast and tonality where an air dried print has slightly less contrast and added warmth over a forced air dried print that is glossy. No clear winner here, but I kinda like the satin of the air dried print due to the lack of glare. The GO layer is almost transparent and is almost invisible, even on a white border.
Cal
I have to order more paper and ink after having bulked up on 330ml to start initially, mostly mid-tones, to keep stocked with ink. Ran through 400 ML gloss overcoat already and I'm on my second 400 ml. I had reordered 200 sheets of 8 1/2x11 Jon Cone Type 5, but I soon discovered that the prints really open up at 13x19. Oh-well. While Jone Cone's inks might be less expensive than Epson's OEM inks, my experience is that with Peizography you might be utilizing more ink to make a print. About every two weeks I've had to top up my carts to avoid the risk of an empty cart. Once came really close.
13x19 is a good size to print on 17x22 for exhibition prints because stock frame sizes are 18x24 that allows for exposing some additional border in a mat and then allow for a generous border generated by the matte. Printing a different size will require costly custom framing if exhibition is your goal. Dealers and collectors like generous boardes to allow for museum framing (archival).
I learned that air drying and printing the "Gloss Overcoat" 24 hours later instead of forced air drying for a few minutes provides a more satin/less glossy effect. My thinking is that the GO soakes more deeply into the paper when the print is fully dried buy the 24 hour wait. Also this seems to effect the contrast and tonality where an air dried print has slightly less contrast and added warmth over a forced air dried print that is glossy. No clear winner here, but I kinda like the satin of the air dried print due to the lack of glare. The GO layer is almost transparent and is almost invisible, even on a white border.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Jeff,
I just got a seldom used 7800 that was sporatically used enough over its 9 year life that remains fresh. Paid $100.00 because the previous owner was moving to Japan. Only made 1802 prints before I got it.
Over the course of a week I cleaned the capping station, printed 5 test pages in a row, aligned the print heads, and flushed out all the color inks with Piezoflush using new refillable carts.
The Jon Cone carts are a bit more than a third bigger than the 220ml OEM Epson carts, and I pretty much used a gallon of Piezoflush to fill the carts and perform an initial fill. I removed the doors because they just hang open, and eventually they will get snapped off otherwise accidently.
Now I need some big dollars for paper and ink. A pretty big step for someone who only started printing digitally in January of this year. I'm going to the next level of a 24 inch Pro printer.
Cal
I just got a seldom used 7800 that was sporatically used enough over its 9 year life that remains fresh. Paid $100.00 because the previous owner was moving to Japan. Only made 1802 prints before I got it.
Over the course of a week I cleaned the capping station, printed 5 test pages in a row, aligned the print heads, and flushed out all the color inks with Piezoflush using new refillable carts.
The Jon Cone carts are a bit more than a third bigger than the 220ml OEM Epson carts, and I pretty much used a gallon of Piezoflush to fill the carts and perform an initial fill. I removed the doors because they just hang open, and eventually they will get snapped off otherwise accidently.
Now I need some big dollars for paper and ink. A pretty big step for someone who only started printing digitally in January of this year. I'm going to the next level of a 24 inch Pro printer.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Piezography is having a 10% off sale for Labor Day. Now is the time to load up if you have the cash flow.
Cal
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I just dropped another $3.2K in paper and ink. Since January 2015 I have spent a total of $8.2K in paper and ink.
All of a sudden that Epson 7800 that I secured for $100.00 got expensive. It is a 9 year old printer that only made 1802 prints before I got it, it somehow was used just enough to not have any maintenance issues, and is basically a fresh printer.
The 7800 has been loaded with Piezoflush for long term storage since August and will be put online soon. Not sure if I can afford to keep the 3880 going due to the costs of paper and ink, but it would be nice to have a second printer with a different inkset.
Cal
All of a sudden that Epson 7800 that I secured for $100.00 got expensive. It is a 9 year old printer that only made 1802 prints before I got it, it somehow was used just enough to not have any maintenance issues, and is basically a fresh printer.
The 7800 has been loaded with Piezoflush for long term storage since August and will be put online soon. Not sure if I can afford to keep the 3880 going due to the costs of paper and ink, but it would be nice to have a second printer with a different inkset.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Been experimenting with Canson Baryta Photograpique, and Canson Platine Fibre Rag. Discovered that both papers offer the same tonality, but the Baryta Photograpic is a bit smoother intexture and makes a bit glossier print.
The bad news is that "Pizzawheeling" is evident when printing the Gloss Overcoat with the Canson papers when using a 3880. I was aware of all the reports, and now I have first hand experience. Good thing I have the 7800 with its vacuum platen for the paper transport because I really really like the look of the Canson papers. There seems to be more of a glow to the midrange with the Canson papers when compared to the Jon Cone Type 5 that I am use to. In contrast the JC Type 5 to me has the blackest black (Joe differs) and the added texture of the JC 5 makes it more like a mat paper than glossy. When the detail is in the shadows the JC 5 is the best paper, but for midrage I love the Canson.
I also have been printing on Epson Exhibition Fiber that has trace amounts of optical brightners. This paper has the glow in the highlights and offers the whitest white. Too bad about using optical brightners because otherwise I would not curb and limit its use. With my warm neutral to selenium splitone the EEF looks more like a wet print than a real fiber wet print.
So it seems that now I will more or less use the JC 5 as an art paper as being my mat paper even though it is processed as a glossy because it has a "satin" finish and is not as glossy as either the Canson papers or Epson EF.
The Baryta Photographic is cellulose and inexpensive to serve as for proofing since it matches the Platine Fibre Rag in tonality (it also has a Baryta coating). I think I need to bulk up on these papers because I think they most suit my printing.
The Epson Exhibition Fiber I will use sparingly and only when the image warrants it due to the optical brightners.
I hope to soon have the Epson 7800 online, and I think I will convert my 3880 with a Selenium inkset to have a second range of tonality on the smaller printer. With two inksets and just three papers I can do a lot of printing.
Cal
The bad news is that "Pizzawheeling" is evident when printing the Gloss Overcoat with the Canson papers when using a 3880. I was aware of all the reports, and now I have first hand experience. Good thing I have the 7800 with its vacuum platen for the paper transport because I really really like the look of the Canson papers. There seems to be more of a glow to the midrange with the Canson papers when compared to the Jon Cone Type 5 that I am use to. In contrast the JC Type 5 to me has the blackest black (Joe differs) and the added texture of the JC 5 makes it more like a mat paper than glossy. When the detail is in the shadows the JC 5 is the best paper, but for midrage I love the Canson.
I also have been printing on Epson Exhibition Fiber that has trace amounts of optical brightners. This paper has the glow in the highlights and offers the whitest white. Too bad about using optical brightners because otherwise I would not curb and limit its use. With my warm neutral to selenium splitone the EEF looks more like a wet print than a real fiber wet print.
So it seems that now I will more or less use the JC 5 as an art paper as being my mat paper even though it is processed as a glossy because it has a "satin" finish and is not as glossy as either the Canson papers or Epson EF.
The Baryta Photographic is cellulose and inexpensive to serve as for proofing since it matches the Platine Fibre Rag in tonality (it also has a Baryta coating). I think I need to bulk up on these papers because I think they most suit my printing.
The Epson Exhibition Fiber I will use sparingly and only when the image warrants it due to the optical brightners.
I hope to soon have the Epson 7800 online, and I think I will convert my 3880 with a Selenium inkset to have a second range of tonality on the smaller printer. With two inksets and just three papers I can do a lot of printing.
Cal
thompsonks
Well-known
Jeffrey Hughes' well-written Blog has revived my interest, but I have a question.
About a year ago I met a Piezography aficionado here on RFF and we exchanged prints from the same files. My peer group and I couldn't see a consistent improvement in his Piezo prints over my three-toned ones, but a number of variables weren't under control.
Recently, though, I read on another forum that John Cone is working on a 'Pro' version of Piezography, and if this is so – and given Jeffrey's testimony – I'd like to try again. Do you folks have information about this development?
Kirk
BTW, the blog mentions inadequacy of Cone's tiny sample prints. I bought both sets, and IMO they're just awful: besides being too small to see, they exhibit considerable inconsistency in shadow detail; and some, with a proper viewing light, even look green. I wish some more convincing samples were available.
About a year ago I met a Piezography aficionado here on RFF and we exchanged prints from the same files. My peer group and I couldn't see a consistent improvement in his Piezo prints over my three-toned ones, but a number of variables weren't under control.
Recently, though, I read on another forum that John Cone is working on a 'Pro' version of Piezography, and if this is so – and given Jeffrey's testimony – I'd like to try again. Do you folks have information about this development?
Kirk
BTW, the blog mentions inadequacy of Cone's tiny sample prints. I bought both sets, and IMO they're just awful: besides being too small to see, they exhibit considerable inconsistency in shadow detail; and some, with a proper viewing light, even look green. I wish some more convincing samples were available.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Kirk,
I remember the comparision made on RFF a while back. A well done mat print compared to a fine OEM inkset print was basically a coin toss.
The results I had from printing Joe's (from the NYC Meet-Up) Monochrom file that I printed two ways on a 3880 loaded with my warm neutral to selenium split tone had similar but different results.
Joe had sent me a TIFF that he had post processed, and I printed that TIFF as a baseline. The image was shot in the southern end of Central Park and buildings in Columbus Circle could be seen through the trees. In the midground were some textured boulders, and the lighting was high contrast and bright, but Joe somehow made a remarkable exposure that had high contrast lighting outside of Central Park, but within Central Park had rich smooth mids. It was an exceptional shot.
I took the RAW file of the same image and performed my post processing, and perhaps I went a bit heavy handed because of my reputation as "Calzone." LOL. Let's just say that my print was very different than Joe's: first off I printed with more contrast so I had a blackler-black; I also amped up the details which adds contrast and mucho shadow detail; and then I stretched the curve for more tonality (even smoother wider midrange).
My print from the RAW file displayed a squirrel in the foreground that remained hidden in a shadow in Joe's TIFF. My print also I think printed more detail like a larger format, but Joe says the image he shot closely resembled the print that was made from the TIFF.
Joe has a 3880 loaded with the OEM inkset, and he made a print from the same TIFF to compare, and Joe reports that the two TIFF prints are kinda indistinguishable even though one is with Piezography and the other OEM (K3). In this manner these results match yours and others.
But here is where things differ greatly: using a Monochrom there is a lot more tonality and shadow detail that often goes unprinted, and this is where Piezography I think excells. Also a 3880 with its 17 inch wide limit is too small a printer for Monochrom Piezography printing and a 7800 or 7880 is really what you need to print for exhibition. Perhaps what I'm saying that if you don't print large (20x30/24x36 or even bigger) then Piezography then is not likely needed. BTW I think with some files I can print even bigger than 24x36.
Understand that I shoot kinda like a large format shooter, meaning that I try to make perfect negatives/files that could be contact printed, meaning I actually do not do a lot of post processing, and I maximize IQ at image capture. Although I am shooting small format (Monochrom) the results I print have the tonality and IQ of medium format, and sometimes with certain files (high shutter speed, perfect focus, great lighting, detailed subject....) I get large format results.
At PhotoPlusExpo I brought a 13x19 print I made to give to my friend Robert Rodreguez who is the Artist In Residence at the Canson booth, but I kinda borrowed that print to show Richard Herzog of Phase One fame who was manning the Leica SL booth. Here was a guy who shoots with a Phase One back with a view camera, and I kinda blew him away with just one print. A picture is worth more than a thousand words.
Know that I use a 27 inch EIZO that I have dimmed down to 80 Lux in a darkened room, but know that when I compare a Piezography print to the Eizo screen that there is more shadow detail and tonality in the shadows on my print than on my optimized Eizo. Basically I can print what I can't see. Also consider that I am trying to emulate large format ideally and not high contrast or high ISO photography.
As far as Jon Cone samples, I laid out a $250.00 deposit for a 13x19 Jon Cone portfolio. Out of all the prints what impressed me the most was the digital negative printed on overhead transparency film. I borrowed this portfolio about 3 years ago and since then digital negatives using Piezography has become more turnkey. My interest here is to make limited edition silver wet prints using Piezography for contact printing.
Cal
thompsonks
Well-known
Looks like both 'experiments,' rough as they were, led to the same results - which is why I was asking about newer developments from Cone that might place Piezography more clearly ahead.
On the score of print size, I wouldn't want to go there - but IMO it's a matter of taste. I don't print BW as large as you have in mind because I think of it as a 'traditional' print-form. 16x20 paper with a 12x18 print was a standard size, and 20x24 (15.5x22.5) was gigantic. I'd be sort of embarrassed to go larger - but I see no reason why anyone else should accept this old-fashioned prejudice.
Kirk
PS, my Monochrom has taken a long spin into outer Leica space for a sensor replacement. But I've been getting even more advantageous files from A7rII BW conversions - equal resolution, remarkable tonal range, and the important ability to use LR/ACR sliders in converting different colors (especially helpful in landscapes). Still use MATE and WATE for consistent rendering.
On the score of print size, I wouldn't want to go there - but IMO it's a matter of taste. I don't print BW as large as you have in mind because I think of it as a 'traditional' print-form. 16x20 paper with a 12x18 print was a standard size, and 20x24 (15.5x22.5) was gigantic. I'd be sort of embarrassed to go larger - but I see no reason why anyone else should accept this old-fashioned prejudice.
Kirk
PS, my Monochrom has taken a long spin into outer Leica space for a sensor replacement. But I've been getting even more advantageous files from A7rII BW conversions - equal resolution, remarkable tonal range, and the important ability to use LR/ACR sliders in converting different colors (especially helpful in landscapes). Still use MATE and WATE for consistent rendering.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
On the score of print size, I wouldn't want to go there - but IMO it's a matter of taste. I don't print BW as large as you have in mind because I think of it as a 'traditional' print-form. 16x20 paper with a 12x18 print was a standard size, and 20x24 (15.5x22.5) was gigantic. I'd be sort of embarrassed to go larger - but I see no reason why anyone else should accept this old-fashioned prejudice.
Kirk
Kirk,
On one hand I'm with you and 13x19: tradition and convention makes this size suitable for most of my work. I tend to print 13x19 on 17x22 for the wide borders, but some images scream to be printed crazy big. I underline the word crazy because it is both bold and outlandish.
With larger formats that I try to emulate a 18 1/2 x 18 1/2 B&W film 6x6 negative printed on 20x24 inch paper is not really gigantic where the IQ can easily print 20x20 or 24x24. With film a large format shooter once said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5," and this was in referance to some of my 6x9 negatives.
Part of shooting large format is to maintain the IQ and tonality on larger prints. I'm not trying to look small format, thus I have to print larger like large format. I'm really glad that I own a 7800.
Cal
hlockwood
Well-known
I disagree rather strongly, Cal, with your statement, " Perhaps what I'm saying that if you don't print large (20x30/24x36 or even bigger) then Piezography then is not likely needed. BTW I think with some files I can print even bigger than 24x36."
I have been a Piezography user for many years, and always with a desktop printer. Over the years, I've moved from an 1160 4-ink system to my current R3000 with Jon Cone's K7-N inks.
It was I who exchanged B&W prints with Kirk to compare Epson inks on his 38XX to mine using neutral K7 inks on the R3000. The primary conclusion of that exercise was that a comparison was less than meaningful because I was printing on matte paper while Kirk was printing on glossy. The blacks on glossy are definitely deeper (dMax) than on matte. (Jump in Kirk if I've misstated our results.)
I am currently printing on Canson Rag Photographique which yields the high contrast that I prefer. And the prints on 13x19 paper are outstanding.
A further note: I also avoid any resampling to avoid artifacts associated with up or down sizing; this means printing at 360 dpi for smaller prints (~8x11) and at 280 dpi for the (near) 13x19 prints. At those (Epson canonical) resolutions dpi=ppi, therefore no pixels are added to or subtracted from the original image file. Something you'll want to watch out for, Cal, in moving to very large prints from those fantastic MM files.
HFL
I have been a Piezography user for many years, and always with a desktop printer. Over the years, I've moved from an 1160 4-ink system to my current R3000 with Jon Cone's K7-N inks.
It was I who exchanged B&W prints with Kirk to compare Epson inks on his 38XX to mine using neutral K7 inks on the R3000. The primary conclusion of that exercise was that a comparison was less than meaningful because I was printing on matte paper while Kirk was printing on glossy. The blacks on glossy are definitely deeper (dMax) than on matte. (Jump in Kirk if I've misstated our results.)
I am currently printing on Canson Rag Photographique which yields the high contrast that I prefer. And the prints on 13x19 paper are outstanding.
A further note: I also avoid any resampling to avoid artifacts associated with up or down sizing; this means printing at 360 dpi for smaller prints (~8x11) and at 280 dpi for the (near) 13x19 prints. At those (Epson canonical) resolutions dpi=ppi, therefore no pixels are added to or subtracted from the original image file. Something you'll want to watch out for, Cal, in moving to very large prints from those fantastic MM files.
HFL
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Harry,
Thanks for your response and clarity.
I failed to mention because I am printing glossy that "Pizzawheeling" has become an artifact that comes out especially on Canson papers which I really like. I kinda stuck with Jon Cone Type 5 to avoid this issue, but sometimes it happens anyways, particularly in big sections of black. I discovered this becomes less pronounced if I let the print air dry for a day before printing the gloss overcoat. I think air drying gives me a flatter print. Sometimes the Pizzawheeling is a sign of a slight clogging and a cleaning seems to clear the artifact.
The only way to avoid "pizzawheeling" entirely when printing glossy is to print with a "Pro" printer that utilizes a vacuum platen. Of course you do not have this limitation since you print mat.
I agree with you that 13x19 is a great image size. The results are truely stunning. I'm not saying that every image would be better or appropriate to be printed on a mammoth scale, but some do. It is rather crazy how big one can print because at a certain point it gets crazy expensive.
At the Leica booth the group of guys manning the SL booth were truely stunned by my 13x19. It is just one of those exceptional prints/images.
Interesting to note that the Jon Cone Type 5 to me has a satin finish while the Canson Baryta Photographique and Canson Platine Fibre Rag that both me and Robert Rodreguez seem to favor are more of a true glossy. I'm a new Piezography printer (almost a year and a quarter), I never printed digitally before, but I bought my Monochrom over three years ago when it was first released.
I would not have spent the big money if I did not think that Piezography was the best for me, but I also have to respect others who have not reported seeing a difference like my friend Joe and others on this forum. You and I are guys that have made Piezography work for us, but in different ways. I also am trying to provide useful information because Piezography isn't for everyone. Although I have not been printing long I have printed a lot in that time burning through $5K worth of paper and ink in one year alone, and I just restocked with more paper and ink taking advantage of a Christmas sale and bout another $3.2K worth of paper and ink.
Happy printing.
Cal
Jerevan
Recycled User
I just have to ask ... maybe it is you Cal, but isn't this a very expensive adventure?
From what is written here, it seems to be an A-level investment requiring a financial sponsorship. Granted that the results are stellar and one may "need the best", but all the equipment, huge screens, big printers, papers, ink ...
Or can you "cut corners" and get 95% of the results for much less money, when printing say 8x10" to 11x14"?
I am not trying to start an argument, I am just genuinely curious.
From what is written here, it seems to be an A-level investment requiring a financial sponsorship. Granted that the results are stellar and one may "need the best", but all the equipment, huge screens, big printers, papers, ink ...
Or can you "cut corners" and get 95% of the results for much less money, when printing say 8x10" to 11x14"?
I am not trying to start an argument, I am just genuinely curious.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
J,
Many people print without a calibrated monitor, but I don't. To me printing without one is like printing blind because you can get pretty close to what a print will look like with a calibrated monitor. Basically I owned and used my Monochrom for two years without printing to save up for the Eizo ($2.3K) because this was important to me.
Not many are necessarily printing for exhibition, none the less want to print big. I would say not everyone even prints.
I am not one to settle for less, I worked hard for a long time to get to this point, and perhaps for me it is a great investment of my rather modest resources because all of this is important to me. Basically I don't mind eating nut butter sandwiches at work for lunch every day to live life without compromise in regards to photography.
Your question is kinda like why shoot an expensive Leica when there are cheaper cameras. Also I think I am getting use of the advances that Jon Cone performed that are well suited for me. For some shooting the Leica makes them happy. For me Piezography also makes me happy.
Anyways you ask a good questions that every serious photographer should answer for themselves: what is the best tool for the job, and what will make me happy. All kinda personal.
I can't tell you how pleased I am with the results. The prints really speak for themselves. I never thought it could be this good, and that I could actually afford it, abid with sacrifice.
As far as my expenses for paper and ink, my expenses are high because I print a lot, and it creates great joy to get results that exceed what I originally envisioned.
Cal
Jerevan
Recycled User
Cal,
Good to hear how you feel about it and what you care about - like eating nut butter sandwiches
I guess I am just trying to grasp (for myself) what my own best tools are and how to achieve what I want. Thanks for the insight.
Good to hear how you feel about it and what you care about - like eating nut butter sandwiches
I guess I am just trying to grasp (for myself) what my own best tools are and how to achieve what I want. Thanks for the insight.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Cal,
Good to hear how you feel about it and what you care about - like eating nut butter sandwiches
I guess I am just trying to grasp (for myself) what my own best tools are and how to achieve what I want. Thanks for the insight.
J,
Everyone is different. Getting what works for you is the only thing that is important.
Also know I have friends who buy new cameras all the time, and this is their style. Basically it works for them.
Know that I'm an old B&W film guy who went to art school decades ago with a day job. At 58 years old at this point in my life I splurge because I don't have as many decades left. Also the gear I buy are keepers that I intend to keep for the rest of my life. Even the Epson 7800 is rebuildable, and if I want to keep it going for decades basically I can. Already downloaded the service manual. I purposely seek gear that has "legs" meaning stuff that will be durable over the long haul, is not disposable, and can be fixed or repaired.
Your values and who you are will manifest itself through your gear and what you do. The best advice if you want to be an artist is avoid what other people are doing, and this is the best way to stand out as an individual. Best of luck.
Cal
gdmcclintock
Well-known
"At 58 years old at this point in my life I splurge because I don't have as many decades left."
Yes! At 63 I know I'll be lucky to make pictures for another 17 years before I lose my marbles.
It's always time to concentrate on what's important.
Yes! At 63 I know I'll be lucky to make pictures for another 17 years before I lose my marbles.
It's always time to concentrate on what's important.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
George,
We both have lived interesting lives. The key here is not to have regrets.
Cal
gdmcclintock
Well-known
Sounds like your life as a fashion/street photographer is more interesting than mine is, Cal!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
George,
I have had a very disrupted life with many stumbles, stops and starts. I am very deeply jealous of you being a Jazz musician who had the courage to live the life.
I have a great pair of hands, but anxiety and other difficulties that make me a good photographer with some obsessive traits prevent me from being the guitar player I would like to be. I wish I could be like a drummer to keep a beat and multitask.
You my friend have something special.
Cal
thompsonks
Well-known
Oh to be as young as you guys!
I've received answers from Jon Cone to my question about what's forthcoming, and he didn't say it was Top Secret or even confidential, so here are his 3 points:
1. Re: the rumor of a new Pro system, he's aiming for April;
2. He'll have a version in a couple of weeks for Epson P600, but won't have one for P800 because it can use none but Epson inks.
3. The Canon project from a number of years back was abandoned because once a Canon printer has been used for color inks, it can't be cleaned/purged/converted for other inks. I'm particularly sorry about this because I have an idle Canon 6300 with vacuum pump that I was hoping could be converted.
Let me assure you and Harry that I haven't given up and do plan to try Piezo printing when the new products are available. I could use a P600 and limit myself to 13x19, but sometimes I merge files into a square and would like to be able to do 14x14" on 17" paper (same image area as 2:3 format printed 11.5x17.25" on 13x19"). So my best bet is to keep waiting to see what printers the Pro system is designed to use best. Maybe I can abandon the 24" Canon and replace it with a used 7xxx Epson with vacuum, if that's really what works best.
Anyway I'll keep reading your experiences and Jeff's blog regularly, and with thanks.
Kirk
I've received answers from Jon Cone to my question about what's forthcoming, and he didn't say it was Top Secret or even confidential, so here are his 3 points:
1. Re: the rumor of a new Pro system, he's aiming for April;
2. He'll have a version in a couple of weeks for Epson P600, but won't have one for P800 because it can use none but Epson inks.
3. The Canon project from a number of years back was abandoned because once a Canon printer has been used for color inks, it can't be cleaned/purged/converted for other inks. I'm particularly sorry about this because I have an idle Canon 6300 with vacuum pump that I was hoping could be converted.
Let me assure you and Harry that I haven't given up and do plan to try Piezo printing when the new products are available. I could use a P600 and limit myself to 13x19, but sometimes I merge files into a square and would like to be able to do 14x14" on 17" paper (same image area as 2:3 format printed 11.5x17.25" on 13x19"). So my best bet is to keep waiting to see what printers the Pro system is designed to use best. Maybe I can abandon the 24" Canon and replace it with a used 7xxx Epson with vacuum, if that's really what works best.
Anyway I'll keep reading your experiences and Jeff's blog regularly, and with thanks.
Kirk