Digital BW, The Print

danielstaver wrote:

 >People may be having unreasonable expectations about BW printing, but
 >who created those expectations? I quote from Epson's UK web-site:
 >
 >
Answer #1 - the market, as more users enter, higher expectations are
engendered...

Answer #2 - Of course the vendors drive expectations as well

 >(http://www.epson.co.uk/product/printers/photo/styphoto2100/index.htm)
 >
 >"Further enhancements include an additional light black cartridge as
 >standard. This improves gradations to both colour and black and white
 >images, widening the colour gamut to enhance greyscale and colour
 >tonal gradations.
 >

Marketing hype - but proves what I said about that light black doing
more than helping B&W printing.. So, your "true neutral light black"
  might not do the whole job EPSON uses that ink for..

 >EPSON's `Gray Balancer' software is designed to
 >calibrate and customize the greyscales used in black and white photo
 >reproduction. It gives you the flexibility to adjust the application
 >of ink according to the conditions in which prints will be stored or
 >displayed.
 >
Translated - "allows you to control unacceptable color shifts and
metamerism so that the prints look neutral in ONE display condition"

If a buyer read that far and took that to mean something else, they need
to go read a bunch of printing and color theory.

 >The results are perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant
 >black and white photos."
 >
 >

Yup, sure.. Under ONE lighting condition... AND NOTE, it never says,
"quality equaling traditional B&W silver gelatine prints"...

 >Doesn't this sound like a printer that'll do great BW printing
 >straight out of the box?
 >
Nope, it sounds like a printer that can do god B&W prints for one
lighting condition at a time..

 >Most people aren't likely to translate this
 >marketing hype into the poorly balanced prints that'll either look
 >green in daylight or purple indoors.
 >
Metamerism is a fact of inkjet reality, especially with pigs -- what is
the "consumer" not getting here?  The copy is pretty clear that you are
expected to tweak your images for the lighting condition.. I suppose
EPSON should put a big bold RED "WARNING METAMERISM: your B&W prints may
not appear neutral when displayed under lighting conditions different
from those they were printed for"?

It's not like the Orange Shift, nothing near that, where EPSON said
prints would last as long as traditional silver prints.. There's a
difference between saying a print is good and saying it is tone neutral
under varied lighting sources.

It's not marketed as a B&W printer either, but a Color printer that does
Good B&W imagery - if there are better inksets out there for that it is
incumbent on the consumer not the manufacturer to research that b4
buying.  If the consumer's research consists of ads from EPSON, copy in
PC Magazine, and a quick demo, then they obviously aren't investing much
in the process prior to purchase.  I feel those who got hit with Orange
Shift when expecting silver print longevity were victims.. In this case,
the printer performs as advertised.

 > Or a utility that will waste
 >endless sheets of paper without getting you any closer to that
 >perfectly balanced, smooth toned, vibrant black and white photo.
 >
 >
You are asking for a non-metameric print as well.. That's a different
ball of wax.

It's a prosumer item,

 >Besides, ImagePrint and PowerRIP can do it, so it's not like it's
 >impossible either...
 >
 >
Possible and cost-effective are VERY different. Hell, we don't even get
the grey-balancer in the US b/c it would cost too much to support..

Plus.. Ummm.. AFAIK..  not by using just/both light black and black...
and that's what you were asking for,

If you thought you were buying one printer that could make BOTH perfect
non-metameric B&W prints, as well as color prints that were equal to
current tech. dye-based inkset models, you got bitten and I have some
sympathy for you. But, one should do their research BEFORE buying a
product..

None of these are hidden flaws. The EPSON copy may be hype, but it
doesn't lie AND there was plenty of info onlist here about the
limitations inherent in the 2200 approach and its final iteration.  The
vast majority of the reviews on here said that the 2200 was NOT the
all-in-one solution to Color and B&W prinitng...If you want professional
level output than read the reviews of professionals who review the
products (as you find here), not the hype spewed out by mainstream
publications and advertising copy boys... I'm assuming you wouldn't
purchase a particular camera lens because it got a great review in PC
Magazine, Time or USA Today, would you?  Then don't expect mass market
info on printers to be any better.
Keith



"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
guys"





</div>