Digital BW, The Print

I think that's a pretty fair assesment.  I elected the 'pay someone else to do the work' approach.  I have a 9600 with Imageprint.  I don't regret it at all.  If there is a perception that 'money is no object', then this a good way to go.  (Actually, in my case, there was a difference of opinion in the household on the 'money is no object' question, but the print quality has helped smooth that over.)  
 
The ink/paper costs due to experimention have been very small.  When I download a profile from Colorbyte (at no additional cost over the RIP price), it is spot on, and I can use it immediately.  This due in part to Colorbyte's quality, and the fact that there is almost no variation between individual printers in the 9600 and 7600 line.  I was under the impression that was also the case with the 2200, but some posts on here indicate that might not be the case.  So, if you're thinking about the 2200, you might want to independently verify that issue.
 
Tom Baker

Mike Botelho <mfractl@...> wrote:
OK, based on absorbing lots of information in a very short amount of 
time, I seem to have reached a choice between two options, using the 
Ultra Tone inks on a dedicated B&W printer or using ImagePrint with 
the Ultrachromes on a 7-color Epson printer.  Assuming that the 
ImagePrint prints will also display no matamerism (correct me if I'm 
wrong), here is how I've come to understand both options:

Option 1: Ultra Tones on a dedicated B&W printer:
     -high quality results with no metamerism
     -avoids colored inks fading before black ink
     -choice of warm, neutral, cool toning
     -an expensive RIP not needed
     -would end up spending money on a separate printer for color

Option 2: Ultrachromes/ImagePrint on Epson 7-color printer
     -high quality results with no metamerism (due to the use of more
         colors)
     -colored inks could conceivably fade before the black ink
     -some, limited, control over toning
     -high cost of RIP, increasing considerably for WF models (but
         the RIP would also be extremely useful for color printing)
     -could print B&W on the same printer, which could save quite a
         lot if we're talking WF (though the increased cost of a WF
         RIP would eat up a god chunk of that)

So, is that a good estimation?  Am I wrong anywhere?  Are there other 
advantages or drawbacks to either choice?

Also, there's the upcoming Epson 4000 that will supposed have drivers 
that will handle B&W better.  (Will this mean new drivers for the 
2200/7600/9600 that also do better?)  Plus, having Photo Black and 
Matte Black available as a software change makes it all the more 
viable as a printer for both color and B&W.  (Though I'm unsure if 
I'd be willing to pay that much more than the 2200 for a few extra 
inches.  At that point, why not just spend a bit more and go with the 
7600 and get an impressive size increase, I think, maybe.)

Mike


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

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

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]