Digital BW, The Print

Thanks very much, Robert. IJC is looking awfully attractive. When I got the
2200, my plan was to use it for color (mostly making prints of my dad's six
or seven year's worth of work from his slide era...a whole 'nuther kettle of
difficult fish) and the occasional postscript job, and convert the 1280 to
B&W. (I had been using an EX for B&W). But I am increasingly impressed with
the 2200. I'm getting really nice prints now using the Epson RIP and it
seems quite likely I can do a little better still with IJC. I'm thinking
that even though the 1280 is much slower I may reverse field and use it for
low run postscript and the 2200 strictly for prints. Goodness knows the
third party dyes are a lot cheaper to buy and, at least with the EX, still
bang out spot-on pantone matches via the Epson RIP.

OT, but loosely related: anyone else using the Epson RIP for the 2200 to run
postscript jobs? I use it to bang out really short run stuff once in a
while, and it just won't do a duotone. The magenta cart goes wild. The other
Epson RIPs for the 3000, 1280, EX, etc. work just fine. Maddeningly, I have
to convert the duotones to CMYK.

Matthew Born

__

> Exactly.  You could also do it with a 1280.  You really don't need six
> channels for grayscale.  The advantage of doing it with a 2200 is that the
> 2200 has the potential to put down more ink...which for the blacks can
> result in a higher dmax.  The 2200 is the ideal printer because of speed,
> ink flow and flexibility...it allows you to either use a CIS, individual
> carts...or for that matter easily use some combination of these.  Of course
> at this point you have to wash out carts...which is a major pain...but
> hopefully the virgin empty carts will be available soon.