Digital BW, The Print

Mathiew,

some comments on your post:


>I will say this,
> though: the Epson RIP isn't nearly as dotty in the highlights. I can't
> explain this, though I suspect it has something to do with the OPM curves
> using more of the black inks and less of the color. 

I doubt anybody will bring the black up as high as the highlights. Typically it 
won't start before at least 50% gray. There may be other reasons for the dots 
(see below).





>Pushing the blender more
> towards warm may alleviate it, 

It won't. The problem is the lack of a second, lighter gray. 


>Robert, Paul and others have commented
> extensively on the "dots in the highlights" problem with the OEM inks and
> we're all anxiously awaiting the empty carts to get around that.

Yes, but there may have also been some dither issues with the current 
release of OPM for the 2200. Contact bowhaus and request the latest beta - if 
you haven't already. If that doesn't change what you see, it's simply that the 
current gray is too dark to go into the highlights without a visible dot. 


> 
> All that being said I will say this: the Epson RIP for the 2200 does in fact
> make much better B&W prints than the OEM driver (IMHO). 
>Whether or not it's
> worth $200 or is the best solution is certainly open to debate. In my case I
> do in fact need to output postscript once in a while, so the combination
> made it a good buy for me. 


For the once-in-a-while use, Photoshop makes a great rasteriser - though 
less convenient.  If bw is your main concern, the $200 might be better spent 
on IJC - assuming you don't have other issues of dither, sharpness etc that 
would lean you towards the Epson product.



Antonis