Digital BW, The Print

"Paul" <paulmwhiting@...> wrote:
>
> Keep us posted on progress with your 1800, Paul. ...

Sadly, my 1800 could not be easily revived.  Given all the issues I had with that printer heroics are not warranted.  While the 3-MK setup was very successful, that 1800 was right up there with the 1280 in terms of problems/$.

For easy 13" dye capability, I'll first try my 1100 with the single-dilution quad setup.  

I'm not sure why the dyes are smoother than pigments with this type of setup, but they are.  The 3 pl WF 30 prints are simply better than the 1400, at least when only 2 positions of the 1400 are used.  The 1.5 pl and higher dmax of the 1400 make it look better on paper, but the microbanding at the narrow leading edges of cards and due to the pre-scored fold of the card stock more than offset the theoretical 1400 advantages.  No viewer will ever see the lower dmax or larger drop size of the WF 30 (and hopefully  1100).

I wonder what drop size the Noritsu dry lab printers use.  They do not use light color inks, which probably causes their prints to look worse under the microscope, but I wonder if customers ever see the difference.  I suspect they use roll paper and cut it after printing, so they may be able to avoid the feed problems we've seen on the 1.5 pl printers.  

At one point I thought the WF 40 with it 2 pl drop might be a better printer, but it may be discontinued (according to B&H & out of stock at Epson).  At this point I don't see any need for more than the WF 30 for cards and 8x10. So, I'll probably buy another one of those as my card printer.  The cards are definitely worth a dedicated WF 30 dye printer. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com