Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

You wrote:

>...
>...the print's life
>expectancy, while not irrelevant, is not my primary concern at this
>point.
>... question: is there a significant difference in
>the "quality" of the output between a well produced PS quadtone using
>the standard Epson inks (1280) and one of the systems using dedicated
>quadtone inks?  In short, is it worth dedicating the 1200 to B&W and
>installing either MIS or Pieziographic inks?

A perfectly-profiled 1280 with Epson dye ink can make B&W prints that look
very good -- in some light and for a little while.  However, even if you get
the cross-overs/color tints out of the system when the print is fresh, with
differential fade of the dyes there will be color shifts.  Also, the photo
will suffer from "metamerism" -- tone shifts as the display life is changed.

Probably most of us have gone through the drill of trying to use color inks
for B&W.  The 2200 might make the grade, but until I have seen the results
of long-term fade tests (which I, among others, are doing) I'm going to
remain a bit skeptical that Epson has entirely solved the problem.

Actually, a big factor you might want to consider is cost.  At least with
the MIS ink, the cost is very low compared to Epson inks -- especially if
you buy bulk ink and either load carts yourself or use a continuous inking
system.

So, a spare printer with quads might make experimenting with digital photos
both more satisfying and less expensive.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com