Digital BW, The Print

Even if the difference is perceptible, that doesn't mean one method is "better" than the other.  It ultimately comes down to what meets your needs.  Why don't you start by printing BW with the Epson driver and the Ultrachrome inks?  See if the results are satisfactory to you. You can add QTR to the workflow and see if that improves either the process or the final product.  Then, when you've got the process down, try the UT-7 inks and compare.  (BTW, I don't have room for two printers either, but I have them anyway, and I'm pleased with the results.)

Good luck!  :-)

Greg F.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jge@...> wrote:
>
> 
> > John, my recommendation would be to get the UT-7 ink set and go to work using the Epson driver. ....  I haven't tried QTR, but if you are planning to use your 2200 for both BW and color printing, that may be the way to go.  If you do a lot of printing, a dedicated BW printer makes sense.  The 1400 is pretty inexpensive.
> 
> Yeah, one of these two options seems to be the way to go.  As cheap as the
> printers are getting (e.g the Epson 1400), at least in comparison to the cost
> of ink, it's real tempting to go with a 1400 as dedicated B&W and keep my
> 2200 for color.   But I don't really have the space and it seems slightly
> silly unless I get way more committed.
> 
> So, the question becomes, is the superiority of UT7 (with either Epson or QTR),
> as opposed to QTR w/ UltraChrome, sufficient to justify the hassle of changing
> cartridge sets when I want to switch between color and B&W ?   I don't think
> I'd be switching very often, but still, if the difference is barely perceptible (between
> UT7 and UltraChrome), why bother ?   The interest here in exploring these UT inks
> seems to suggest that it's NOT "barely perceptible", although some respondents
> to my question seem to be hinting that it is.
> 
> John
>