Digital BW, The Print

Epson 2200 inks are a fortune compared to the Piezotone inks...not even in
the same ball park...particularly if you use a CIS for the Piezotone
inks...I believe that your post below seemed to indicate the converse.  The
main advantage of the 2200 is being able to print on glossy stock and not
needing a dedicated BW printer...but you will need a rip like IP (or maybe
Epson's...haven't used it) to get near quad quality BW printing...but in the
long run the quad system will be cheaper to run for BW output if that is a
major factor for you.

Robert


On 2/24/03 5:44 PM, "sanfo2003 <SandyCornelius@...>"
<SandyCornelius@...> wrote:

>> Would anyone like to make any helpful comments or suggestions. Am I
> leaving out other options? ...
> 
> Sounds to me like you've done your homework pretty well. When I hear
> the words "trouble free", "perfection" and "black and white" in the
> same sentence I think of Pieziography with Piezotone inks. But you're
> right, the inks are very expensive. Posts in this forum indicate a
> new version of Pieziography to be announced soon so stand by. Take
> the hype with a grain of salt and wait for users reports.
> 
> Epson has a RIP available for the 2200 that prints great (although
> not quite as great as Pieziography) black and white for $200 and uses
> the stock Epson inks. It seems some folks are having a hard time
> getting it to work right on their machine so beware. Personally, its
> worked great for me and I use it for all but my most treasured prints.
> For those most treasured prints I'll use Pieziography, but only for
> those prints because of the cost of the ink -- and Pieziography uses
> a lot of ink. The Epson RIP is capable of making a black and white
> print that to me looks fantastic; that is, until the print is placed
> right next to a Pieziography print where if you look hard you can see
> a difference.
> 
> That's my two cents worth anyway.
> 
>