Digital BW, The Print

I can't help you ... & I laugh, then shake my head when I read a post 
like this - Sorry Peter.  

The concept of having to maintain TWO printers is not big deal.  Why 
maintain two?  Did you do B&W + Color before you were digital?  If 
you did, then it really shouldn't be a big deal.  You 'could' get 
your printer professionally profiled to narrow the range of error and 
make nice prints in both fields from the same printer.

Photography, for it's 160+ years as a chemical process, has a vast 
variety of processes that have been developed (some dominated), gone 
defunct and even been resurrected.  Many of those processes evolved 
to grant easier access (more users) or for cost facters (more users & 
lower cost).  Remember, color wasn't even a viable option due to cost 
limitations until the 60's when changes took place allowing color to 
overtake B&W in useage.  Same arguments go for wanting to make the 
surface of this medium LOOK like the surface of the medium they've 
just left!

Most of us suffer from a modern dilemma of 'availability' chocking 
our ability to do anything.

Anyone curious about the similiarities we're encountering now with 
the development of photographic past I recommend READing "An American 
Century of Photography: from Dry-plate to Digital" by Keith Davis - 
with a push towards the second edition.  Also David Hockney's "Secret 
Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters"  The 
first is good photo-chemical/aesthetic development history book, the 
second a good example of artist investigation/observation within the 
larger history of art and the 'camera's' influence...whether you 
agree with it or not.

Rant-ingly
Cleavis