Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: narikin on December 14, 2010, 11:29:20 am
-
Like many I was confused by the 9890 announcement - who would want a model identical to a 9900, but with 2 less inks?
well today "all ist klar": they are being offered at $2475 nett after Epson rebates with free shipping.
that's why they made it, though I still find it hard to justify the development costs and support /packaging/manuals etc, etc for an identical-but-different 44" printer model. IMHO, quit confusing people and just go for broke with one model (9900) taking the economies of scale. But... they are the ones in the printer business, not me.
-
You don't really believe Epson are stupid, or want to confuse someone?
There are other considerations they regard when deciding on a new line of printers. for example: Digigraphie labs are committed to finish a series of prints with exactly the same ink used as the first print.
what if your 9880 is dead and you need a new printer? and you don't want the 180dpi heads, but the new 360dpi heads, and you have to use the K3 inks and not the HDR? this is where the 9890 fills the gap.
There is too much bashing Epson around this forum lately - is it this time of the year?
-
There is too much bashing Epson around this forum lately - is it this time of the year?
Presume you are referring to the other threads on this forum?
I kind of agree, but... the endless clogging issue has been their Achilles Heel for far too long.
I've been with Epson for 8 years, but am now running another brand (as well), so my loyalty is being sorely tested.
-
I'm a firm believer in the saying "everything has a price". a printer can't be that cheap and be the same quality as the other, at least twice as expensive. and no, it doesn't seem a brand-price issue.
Epson were chosen to be Digigraphie.... operators, by the Digigraphie committee for two reason; quality of print, and the promise that these clogging, dripping, killing-our-wallets heads, will print exactly the same way today and in ten years (if the printer survives, that is). whether it is true or false the visibility of the print quality is better or worse between Canon and Epson, or HP and Epson - it is not always about visibility. that is why you see a 9890, and probably see more of these "weird" versions in the future.
I, too, have a love-hate relationship with my printer (9900). A little bird told me that at photokina, a Canon representative told him that the new Canon's ink is fast pacing to the quality and gamut of Epson's HDR ink. Boy, if I were this guy's boss, I would chop his head off - but that remark says everything to me.
-
A little bird told me that at photokina, a Canon representative told him that the new Canon's ink is fast pacing to the quality and gamut of Epson's HDR ink. Boy, if I were this guy's boss, I would chop his head off - but that remark says everything to me.
I don't understand this remark - is there another way to explain it?
Canon's ink seems to have better longevity, (see Aardenberg) more scratch resistance, less bronzing, and better gamut in the important darker half of the plots than Epson's HDR inks. So, not sure what your "little bird' was talking about.
-
My experience with Canon is null. What the man said is a quote. I too read the remarks and test at WIR and Aardenberg, and can't explain that remark entirely, but the remark was made. I'm waiting to see what the user experience, people here will have with the Lucia EX ink. maybe it will be better the Epson's Ink. Time will tell.
-
my point, Uri, is that "fast pacing the quality" is not English. Its a nonsense series of words.
thats why I asked.
-
"fast pacing to the quality" makes more sense than 'fast pacing the quality'. The way I take that is that Canon is approaching the quality of Epson, which makes sense.
-
"fast approaching the quality" - that makes sense.
Though I would say is no longer true: Canon has exceeded Epson in many cases - longevity, gamut, no blocked nozzles, and... price.
remember this is speaking as someone who's owned Epson printers for 8 years. I wish it weren't true.
-
But for current wide format printer owners the price of Canon 8300 is only about $3000 through the end of the month, with the so-called trade-in-but-you-still-keep-it offer on top of a rebate. I do love my 9880, but in the wee hours of last night I simply had one persistent clogged nozzle too many. I had so hoped the 9900 would have fixed all that. Sigh.
Thing is, I don't think I will benefit a nonce with the increased gamut since I mostly print on naturally gamut-limited canvas. I am pretty sure the canvas prints coming out of a 9890 will look in no way different from those exiting the 8300 or the 9880. Oh well, the sound of "12 inks" is bound to have some client appeal for my art buying customers. Gawd...12 cartridges to stock...and buy!
But no clogs you say? Oooohhh...clogless printing!
-
"fast approaching the quality" - that makes sense.
Though I would say is no longer true: Canon has exceeded Epson in many cases - longevity, gamut, no blocked nozzles, and... price.
remember this is speaking as someone who's owned Epson printers for 8 years. I wish it weren't true.
The gamut claim by canon vs. epson just isn't true. canon's pantone count vs. epson is 90% against 98%. also i like the way canon owners never bring up the cost of new print heads. very good :)
-
narkin- I Think you are off on that price..Epson has an instant rebate on it for dealer's .. That Puts it around 1k more than you posted.. Than Some dealers have a Golden Ticket (These where for rade shows) That some dealer's may be able to pass on for another Mail in rebate of $500.00 ..
If you got that Price of $2475..I would like to know where so I can get a few from them :) LOL
Cheers
Jim Doyle
www.shadesofpaper.com
-
If you got that Price of $2475..I would like to know where so I can get a few from them LOL
Me two, well just the one will do for me.
-
wow :o
Narikin, I humbly apologize if my poor select of word/English offended you in any way. your tolerance to non-native speakers of English is amazing. And all that attention to details... inspiring. or is it only those who don't dislike Epson as much as you do?
It is not surprising at all Epson users are dissatisfied with Ink waste and head clogging (wacky UI decisions also IMO), but my response was to the "all ist klar" you mentioned, about Epson's reasoning for opting this printer - something not a lot of people know. 360dpi heads are a plus, support of thicker media, and, not to enter Ernst field (which I know nothing about), the benefit in the Epson head, where it doesn't heat the ink and the head is ceramic and not metal, is that the nozzle size does not change.ever. no head replacement necessary (unless other mishaps goes on the head - try not printing on a carpet). all around accuracy. but hey, who needs it? you might disregard it, as the 4.5% difference in gamut in a test I saw on this forum, or almost 8% gamut difference in PANTONE, as stated before - but who sees it, right? or the 360dpi massive ceramic heads. or paper handling. or easy workflow with mirage. you're right. ink clogging is a killer to all those benefits. give me a cheap printer with cheap inks - and I'm hooked! I guess different people have different demands from their printer. I need a massive, reliable printouts, great gamut, tons of media option printer. good service is a plus. if I need to waste ink to have this, its a...well...a... relatively...small price to pay :)
disclaimer: all that I wrote is pro Epson, and not against Canon, which I have no experience with. They are all Japanese - and that's good enough for me.
P.S *cough* Epson representatives - if you see this - a new 4990 would be nice. Thank you :)
-
Ori,
Good post - you made some excellent points. And, amazingly, I understood every concept you put forth. If English is your second language, it is better than my second language, which is none! :) By the way, I can't offer you a free 4900, just a good price on one (if you take delivery in the US).
-
Hi there. Where did you find this test spec?
-
It is not surprising at all Epson users are dissatisfied with Ink waste and head clogging
I have been using Epsons for a number of years 7000, 9000, 2400, 4880 and hopefully soon a 9890. I have not had any head clogging issues to talk of and the machines are off for sometimes months at a time. Maybe I'm just lucky, because I don't do anything much in the way of maintenance that way. I'm am an engineer of heavy equipment and think I can tell the difference between a well designed piece of machinery and the rest, the larger Epsons are that well designed equipment. You can find things to winge and wine about on anything you care to think of, making well thought out remarks seem to bypass to many people on the subject. I'm half way convinced that some are paid to make some of the comments about rival manufactures, that or its like rival fans of football clubs. Anyway just to let you know I'm a happy camper with my Epsons.
-
Narikin, I humbly apologize if my poor select of word/English offended you in any way. your tolerance to non-native speakers of English is amazing. And all that attention to details... inspiring. or is it only those who don't dislike Epson as much as you do?
Ori - you are completely off the mark here:
I was being extremely polite and trying as carefully as I could to understand what you meant, without insulting your non native English. read this again, and tell me what is rude about it??:
I don't understand this remark - is there another way to explain it?
then when you just replied repeating the exact same phrase, and Randy chimed in with an interpretation that made not much sense either (and he IS a native English speaker!) I decided to be to-the-fact:
my point, Uri, is that "fast pacing the quality" is not English. Its a nonsense series of words.
thats why I asked.
a simple google search for this phrase ("fast pacing to the quality") will show I'm right - it doesn't exist in English (ok Randy?) and all I was trying to do was ask if there was a different translation you could supply, so I could get the meaning.
Forgive me for trying to understand what it was you /your 'little bird' was trying to say and for politely asking if there was "another way of saying it" And go to a cold shower, please! :)
-
ps: I own 3 Epson printers. I don't know why you think I'm anti-them.
-
The phrase may not exist in English, but I certainly caught the intended meaning. Lighten up. Peace.
-
Jim, I was also offered the printer at this price, by a certain company in NJ, that you may know ( ;))
maybe it was wrong, but thats what the mail said.
-
Epson were chosen to be Digigraphie.... operators, by the Digigraphie committee for two reason; quality of print, and the promise that these clogging, dripping, killing-our-wallets heads, will print exactly the same way today and in ten years (if the printer survives, that is).
Sorry but that is not my understanding of Digigraphie.
My understanding of Digigraphie is that it is a trademark created by Epson France about two years ago to promote the Epson Professional inkjet brand. Digigraphie has had little impact outside of France despite attempts by Epson at wider promotion. Also this is not the first time Epson has tried to promote its products this way. Epson Ultragiclee was a short lived attempt at much the same thing a few years ago. In The UK, it is the independent Fine Art Trade Guild that is taken the most seriously as a measure of print standards but even that has very limited exposure.
-
you're right. what I meant was; from the artist point of view, there is a great disorder in the digital print making business. This is an attempt (like you said, not the first time)by Epson to create a standard for print making. This standard is good for both the artist and the art collector/buyer. I think it is not unacceptable that Epson's printers plays the pivotal role of the standard, as they make the effort to publicize the standard. That there are more then one standard and "seal of authenticity", like the independent Fine Art Trade Guild in your area, does not benefit the industry, IMO. that Epson allowed artist to have a saying on the where,when and how, should make artist more comfortable toward this standardization attempt. mind you, look at the Digigraphie website - there are more and more labs offering this options, and while museums and galleries also approving of this standard - they are heading the right way. also, according to my search, ultragiclee was introduced in 2005, which is 2 years after Digigraphie was announced, so it's not technically a 2nd attempt, but maybe and additional one, to different markets?
-
you're right. what I meant was; from the artist point of view, there is a great disorder in the digital print making business. This is an attempt (like you said, not the first time)by Epson to create a standard for print making. This standard is good for both the artist and the art collector/buyer. I think it is not unacceptable that Epson's printers plays the pivotal role of the standard, as they make the effort to publicize the standard. That there are more then one standard and "seal of authenticity", like the independent Fine Art Trade Guild in your area, does not benefit the industry, IMO. that Epson allowed artist to have a saying on the where,when and how, should make artist more comfortable toward this standardization attempt. mind you, look at the Digigraphie website - there are more and more labs offering this options, and while museums and galleries also approving of this standard - they are heading the right way. also, according to my search, ultragiclee was introduced in 2005, which is 2 years after Digigraphie was announced, so it's not technically a 2nd attempt, but maybe and additional one, to different markets?
Are Digigraphie standards accessible to non-Epson printer manufacturers and can they implement them at reasonable cost? If not, it's bound to fail as a standard.
-
Are Digigraphie standards accessible to non-Epson printer manufacturers and can they implement them at reasonable cost? If not, it's bound to fail as a standard.
From the Rules of Use of the UK website:
Technical commitment
The use of the term Digigraphie relates exclusively to a print produce:
• By an Epson Stylus Pro professional printer
• With Epson UltraChromeTM inks
• On certified* paper
• Authenticated: numbered, signed by the artist, marked with the relief stamp and accompanied by its certificate.
If one of these four obligations is not complied with, the printed work cannot, in any case, be qualified as Digigraphie®. This obligatory qualification is the guarantee, for the artist as for their clients, of ensuring the fidelity and permanence of the reproduced work.
-
From the Rules of Use of the UK website:
Technical commitment
The use of the term Digigraphie relates exclusively to a print produce:
• By an Epson Stylus Pro professional printer
• With Epson UltraChromeTM inks
• On certified* paper
• Authenticated: numbered, signed by the artist, marked with the relief stamp and accompanied by its certificate.
If one of these four obligations is not complied with, the printed work cannot, in any case, be qualified as Digigraphie®. This obligatory qualification is the guarantee, for the artist as for their clients, of ensuring the fidelity and permanence of the reproduced work.
Then I'm not sure what the point of Digigraphie is; is Epson really trying to create an industry-wide printing standard relying entirely on Epson printers and inks or am I missing something? There is no industry I know of which would allow themselves to get voluntarily tied down and held hostage by a standard which relies on one supplier. The whole notion is ludicrous, and I'm being generous.
Reading through their site, Digigraphie sounds like when Americans started calling inkjet prints giclees: because it sounded more artsy and high-brow, and allowed the galleries to ask for higher prices from clueless customers.
At least it appears there's some technical qualifications required for Digigraphie. This of course can mean you get a really crappy print with great longevity :P
-
Then I'm not sure what the point of Digigraphie is; is Epson really trying to create an industry-wide printing standard relying entirely on Epson printers and inks or am I missing something? There is no industry I know of which would allow themselves to get voluntarily tied down and held hostage by a standard which relies on one supplier. The whole notion is ludicrous, and I'm being generous.
Reading through their site, Digigraphie sounds like when Americans started calling inkjet prints giclees: because it sounded more artsy and high-brow, and allowed the galleries to ask for higher prices from clueless customers.
At least it appears there's some technical qualifications required for Digigraphie. This of course can mean you get a really crappy print with great longevity :P
completely agree.
'Digigraphie' sounds like nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the inkjet print market so that to be 'authentic' they must be made with Epson (!) inks, paper, machines. Considering the rubbish Epson bring out as quality 'long life' papers, (Exhibit A: Epson Exhibition Fiber) then this is laughable at best.
We are all better to engage our brains and resist such corporate attempts to copyright or trademark a process, be it Epson /Canon / HP or whomever. Its simply some marketing department Wet Dream, and I don't want to be a part of that sticky mess !
-
but why?
there are multiple tiers to standardization in general, and this case isn't an exception.
as a lab, I can see only benefits in this (or any) standard. I know what to expect quality wise. my customers also. I get a guarantee I can actually utilize as per quality of media and ink - what can I guarantee if using no name media, or unoriginal ink? "corporate" backing is not always a bad idea, you know. I can use other media, BTW - check the media list. also I'm committed to print in highest resolution available for a media. should I tell you about printshops using cheap noname (dare I say Chinese) canvas, 3rd grade ink, and on top of that, lowest quality possible? do you know how many grieved artists I met, after having their prints PEEL OFF (?!). They know it will never happen with me or anyone else working in that standard. and I'm being checked all the time for not deviating from what I, as a lab, signed on - again, only for Digigraphie made prints, not all my work.
if you are an artist/photographer who prints it's own work whether it be original or repro, I can see where you objections come from. but no one twists your arm to print in this standard even if you're entitled to, as a Digigraphie artist. and you get the same assurance I get as a lab. and you know that product-wise, although we don't like looking on our work as a product- it's a good one. and you sell it to a client with confidence. I, at least, wouldn't have it any other way. if it wasn't obvious so far - being a Digigraphie does not mean you HAVE to print only via the standard. it's an option.
and how, pray tell, you can create a printing standard with all the printers, and all the papers? what would be the standard in that? printed via ....A printer? what about quality? how many printers/ink/media combination are there? who would check them all? who would pay for that? it's easy to complain - but what is the alternative you offer? what, a rainbow freindly commitee of companies - HP-Canon-Epson (what about the other dozen companies not mentioned here), working together to make...what? what is the benefit as a group? and are you SURE you want all these companies working together, for the same output? it's a short distance to low common denominator in quality, price fixing etc...
It is not a secret. it's an Epson-run venture. I believe the artist committee is the one that demanded larger media choice - and the list get's bigger all the time.
so you have to run an Epson printer with Epson Ink to be entitled to do so. Even they mentioned it - it's for those who already doing this. so they are making money selling printers, ink and media? last I checked, they were not voluntary organization. it seems to me to be a lot of headache for very little outcome on their side, this whole Digigraphie mambo-jumbo. almost... un-economic. could that be? that in this venture there are actually good intentions, for the art community?
Hell no.
It's Epson. :)
-
but why?
there are multiple tiers to standardization in general, and this case isn't an exception.
as a lab, I can see only benefits in this (or any) standard.
Didn't read the rest as that was enough. I thought the drawbacks with standardizing on single supplier were clear, but apparently not.
For argument's sake let's assume that in some alternate universe where printing houses don't have any business sense at all Epson manages to make Digigraphie into an industry standard. That means that to get "approved" prints one has to print on Epson printers, use Epson inks, and presumably papers approved by and/or made by Epson. That's three vastly increased sources of income to Epson, which are taken away from competition. Less income for competition means less R&D is invested in innovation in printers and inks, so the industry stagnates in the medium-long term.
Of course Epson is also a de facto monopoly, allowing them to increase prices (and margins) to higher levels than in open competition. This money is out of the pockets of printers.
Also, relying on one supplier is a bad idea in general.
So yes, it is indeed an Epson marketing department's wet dream which only benefits Epson. The industry is worse off, there is income distribution to Epson at the expense of artists, print houses, galleries, customers, competing printer and ink manufacturers, and paper manufacturers who don't want to or can't afford to get their papers approved.
And to what end? Digigraphie as I understand is nothing more than Epson tax with vague and questionable benefits.
-
Didn't read the rest as that was enough. I thought the drawbacks with standardizing on single supplier were clear, but apparently not.
Then please do. I addressed what you wrote here, although from a different angle.
this can be a philosophical discussion, although I rather it wouldn't be. How many standards works the way you described? we use here the word standard kind of loosely. The whole point being, ensuring quality to customers who knows nothing about printers, inks, media, etc - be that an artist or end client purchasing an artwork. you, me and most if not all people here - we don't need any standard, we can judge quality by ourselves. we might not want longevity. we might trade gamut for other factors. this is our choice.
How many imaginary world like you described exist? and how many are like I described (price fixing etc)? I know of much more of that kind then yours, in many other areas in our life, beyond this forum. If standardization demands your option or mine - you might say we don't need it at all.
but don't we? like I said - it depends who "we" are. I've grown tired of explaining to customers, after they have been %^&%@*& by other printshops, that I'm better. much better. EVERYBODY says they are the best. so what? why would someone believe me?
well, I hope they'll believe me because represent this standard that demands a certain workflow, that outputs highest quality. I hope they will be more around that will do that. I hope it will regain the trust and value of clients toward prints, limited edition prints, or any other digital manufacturing that insures quality. mass manufacturing, cheap labor and cheap materials, and most importantly - lack of moral, created this situation of suspicion and avoidance of anything regarded "digital" or "print". if it's digital, then tomorrow you will see it all around the world printed gazillion times. right? (holy cow, the spell checker actually fixed my gazillion. I didn't know it's a real word).
wrong. or at least, I'm trying to make it wrong. I want an alternative, trusted worldwide, of quality, limited edition prints. be that Epson or any other devil that will market it - I don't mind. I think in this, real world, there is a place for your freedom of choice, with my benefits of standardization, without the bleak future you described. you can continue creating your art via any method you like, and I will give people the alternative of "safe" route to quality.
This of course can mean you get a really crappy print with great longevity
THIS is a tagline :D (dont forget the COA)
-
and I will give people the alternative of "safe" route to quality.
While you are on it, what is your opinion on ARTtrust, Hahnemühle's certification, several Giclée guilds in Europe and the USA with schemes like that, some mentioning the use of a Cruse scanner as a condition? Is there something wrong with the integrity art print shop owners in general? Are the tests of Wilhelm and Aardenburg Imaging telling us that Epson is the only reliable game in town?
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
ARTtrust sells tags. there are many companies selling all sort of tags, holograms, barcode, even RFID if you like - what that has to do with quality of product? that is about authentication. Hahnemühle's certification is like Epson signature worthy (with a certificate template).some Hahnemühle media is on the Digigraphie list. Giclée guilds are very good at taking their yearly subscriptions fee, AFAIK. not seen much more then that.
There is an integrity problem with many print shops in general, and as the heat rises (IE, competition from cheap eastern manufactures of prints), some compromise on quality for price. where have I written the contrary? . I also didn't say Epson is the only one - can you show me where I wrote that?
I did write that Epson tries to make a certification program that may benefit both the art printers, the artist and the clients - if you use Epson printers. If you do - what's all the turmoil about? if you don't - go address your company and ask them to start their own certification program, if they wish. How exactly many certifications benefit the print industry? at the end - its is about the personal connection between the lab and the artist. if the artist feels he/she has a strong back, he's happy. I'm happy. not everything should become the end of the world (IE, conglomeration), or "if I don't have it, no one should" (IE, cert program). I really dislike that one, especially. Hey, you tested a lot of media types. you can start your own certification program. Have the time/money/power/motivations to do it?
Standardization is good for the end client. The simple artist. The gallery. The museum. it might be less good for you, if you don't find what you're looking in the solution offered. I honestly can't understand what the huge problem is about - as if someone came and pulled your Canon/HP from your hands.
You can always print your original on Canon/HP, and make a Digigraphie on an Epson printer, if you like. :) or maybe I'll buy a Canon, and print whatever I want on whichever printer I'd like, and enjoy all the options.
PS. OMFG. I really deserve a new 4900. Schewe, you got connection with Epson, don't you? :)
-
There is an integrity problem with many print shops in general, and as the heat rises (IE, competition from cheap eastern manufactures of prints), some compromise on quality for price. where have I written the contrary? . I also didn't say Epson is the only one - can you show me where I wrote that?
I'm in art printing for 30 years now, I have seen what can go wrong in many ways. My customers trust me and I tell them what media I use and I give the links to the sites that test the media independently. If anything goes wrong on my side I'm responsible.
Will you be able to sue Epson when something is wrong with the media, the print? Anything written down in the contract that goes beyond normal media manufacturer's warranties? An Epson obligation that assures you can run an identical remaining part of an edition in 10 years time, even if the catalog of Epson products changes? Ever had any success in claiming something from a company like that in Europe? Epson/Digigraphie have police running around on auctions, galleries to intercept counterfeit prints, to sue the counterfeiters? Or is it not more than asking back the Digigraphie embossing stamp if a Digigraphie member goes from the straight path?
Of course if you are Hans van Ommeren then anything is possible. In his Digigraphie profile is no mention of his demos on the Epson booths on all the Photokinas I have been in ten years. He is a member of the Digigraphie Reflection Committee.
On integrity, your first message on Digigraphie in this thread wasn't exactly telling the truth.
Another interesting line in the Digigraphie rules:
>>If, for a defined series, the printer, paper or format is changed, it is obligatory that this become the subject of a new series. The artist undertakes not to exceed the determined print run number, as indicated on the Digigraphie certificate given to each acquirer of a work.<<
Epson and the artists involved didn't like to create a trademark that could kick back on sales with a true limitation on prints made, there is a big window open there for more limited editions of the same image. Do I interpret this incorrectly?
http://www.digigraphie.com/uk/
It is a sad society that accepts company ready made standards like you propose here. Happens too often already.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +180 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Digigraphy is a Trademark. Use of the Trademark (and it rules of use) is very similar to the franchise style of business. You allow the use of the trademark to others as long as they keep within or stick to the rules of use.
It's more a Marketing&Sales instrument then anything else: it's as starting a fastfood restaurant: you can run it under your own brandname or you signup for one of the franchises of the big chains and use the brandname, awareness, etc etc to market your own operation along with the rules the franchise imposes on you.
Check what is written on wikipedia about Trademarks and what is written about Standards and compare.
-
I'm in art printing for 30 years now, I have seen what can go wrong in many ways. My customers trust me and I tell them what media I use and I give the links to the sites that test the media independently. If anything goes wrong on my side I'm responsible.
that's with the customers you already have. looking ahead to the future, people who would not believe one can get a better quality for a higher price, will always go for the cheapest option. In my opinion, that could kill the whole LFP field - LFP was never intended to replace mass production, and cannot compete with it. it offers better quality for higher prices. in the world where everybody hear's music from cell phones and see video on cellphone displays - quality isn't highly regarded.
Will you be able to sue Epson when something is wrong with the media, the print? Anything written down in the contract that goes beyond normal media manufacturer's warranties? An Epson obligation that assures you can run an identical remaining part of an edition in 10 years time, even if the catalog of Epson products changes?
I haven't made an attempt to get compensation from Epson for a defect. I'll be sure to share my experience if it ever happens. If you want to see how Epson's obligation looks like, check the reason for this thread - the 9890.
Ever had any success in claiming something from a company like that in Europe? Epson/Digigraphie have police running around on auctions, galleries to intercept counterfeit prints, to sue the counterfeiters? Or is it not more than asking back the Digigraphie embossing stamp if a Digigraphie member goes from the straight path?
Well - it should be enough, in my point of view. They have "police running" as much as anyone having an interest - even the MPAA, who theoretically looses billions of dollars, have a limited ability to run around and sue everybody. I don't think that was the kind of protection this standard/trademark was supposed to offer. that's just plain mockery.
Of course if you are Hans van Ommeren then anything is possible. In his Digigraphie profile is no mention of his demos on the Epson booths on all the Photokinas I have been in ten years. He is a member of the Digigraphie Reflection Committee.
Do you mean... wait! do you mean he is getting compensated for his committee membership? I'm shocked! I thought everybody has to work for free. We all run on good intentions, aren't we?
On integrity, your first message on Digigraphie in this thread wasn't exactly telling the truth.
That was an error in writing - not in meaning. which was soon corrected. I hold highly of your professionalism and devotion to this subject. please don't ruin that by thinking that it makes you psychic forum judge of character. and also, if it wasn't obvious so far; I don't work for Epson. I don't hold their stocks either. I can't understand how people that have worked 10-30 years in this industry can't bring themselves to see the point of view of the simple buyer, instead of their own. The simple buyer doesn't care if it's Epson or any other company. He would, however, would be very happy to know that the artwork he purchased has a VALUE in other parts of the world (in conjunction of the artist worth, of course).
Another interesting line in the Digigraphie rules:
>>If, for a defined series, the printer, paper or format is changed, it is obligatory that this become the subject of a new series. The artist undertakes not to exceed the determined print run number, as indicated on the Digigraphie certificate given to each acquirer of a work.<<
Epson and the artists involved didn't like to create a trademark that could kick back on sales with a true limitation on prints made, there is a big window open there for more limited editions of the same image. Do I interpret this incorrectly?
I don't know. I can sure find out.
It is a sad society that accepts company ready made standards like you propose here. Happens too often already.
I don't think so. I think it's great we have the option to offer, hopefully, global assurance of quality, and also print whatever we want on whichever printer we want if we don't need this QA, and generally, have all the options open to us.