Digital BW, The Print

bob was referring to the 1280's dye inks which do not
print b&w well. the 1280 with 3rd party inks is
probably the best current option for b&w.
the 2200 out of the box does not work for B&W, the
metamerism is bad. the 2200 with a RIP such as
Imageprint ($400-500) or Open Print Maker (free for
Mac OS 9) or Quadtone RIP (free for Mac OS 10) will
provide acceptable results with the OEM 2200 inkset.
there is no metamerism, but in my experience the
highlites and some shadow transitions can get grainy
and dotty. but if you want a one printer option that
is pretty much the way to go.
i use a 2200 for color, i love it for that.
i also use an old epson 1200 dedicated to b&w. i was
using MIS VM inks using the Paul Roark curve workflow
and the results are generally much superior to the
2200 with OEM ink. i am now converting to MIS-UT inks
and Roy Harrington's Quadtone RIP on my 1200.
eventually i will probably buy an epson 4000 for color
and convert my 2200 to my b&w printer using quad ink.
as a piece of machinery the 2200 blows away the 1200.
anyhoo the long short of all this is to say i am one
of the guys that prefers a dedicated quad ink printer
over a 2200/OEM ink/RIP solution. so if your thinking
primarily black and white i would recommend the 1280
with quad ink over 2200 with RIP. obviously you will
get opinions on both sides, but there is my angle
john eckenrode  

--- Brad Mol <bradmol99@...> wrote:
> Alan
> 
> I just saw a message from Bob Frost.
> He sates that the Epson 2200 gives great B&W prints.
> He says that it has the light black inks that the
> 1280 does not.
> This he says will give you the best prints with
> Epson Inks.
> But are they as good as prints from a 1280 with the
> 3rd party inks?
> This is the key question.  If they are about as
> good, then I would rather go
> that way as Epson inks are easily available out here
> and 3rd party inks will
> have to be bought and shipped over seas to Thailand.
>  More expense and more
> wait.
> What is your take on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/24/03 1:09 AM, "Alan.Huntley@..."
> <Alan.Huntley@...> wrote:
> 
> > IMO = In my opinion, or,
> > IMHO = In my humble opinion
> > 
> > Don't apologize...we were all new once!
> > 
> > Alan Huntley
> > 
> >> > 
> >> > From: Brad Mol <bradmol99@...>
> >> > Date: 2003/10/23 Thu AM 11:24:05 EDT
> >> > To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones &
> Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint &
> >> >       7-Color
> >> > 
> >> > Yes it is a help.
> >> > Thanks.
> >> > But  what is IMO?
> >> > Sorry but new to all this stuff.
> >> > Brad
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > On 10/23/03 10:12 PM, "Alan.Huntley@..."
> <Alan.Huntley@...> wrote:
> >> > 
> >>> > > Hi Brad,
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > It's really not a question of which is
> better...
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > The Epson 1280 with one of the MIS inksets
> or the newer Piezo inks will
> >>> > > produce fine prints. However, this implies a
> dedicated printer for B&W.
> The
> >>> > > Epson 2200, if you want to print B&W
> requires, IMO, one of the RIPs
> >>> available.
> >>> > > I only have experience with ImagePrint.
> Basically, if you need or want
> to
> >>> > > produce B&W and color from the same printer,
> get the 2200 and a RIP. If
> you
> >>> > > only shoot B&W, spare yourself the expense
> and go with the 1280 and one
> >>> of the
> >>> > > many dedicated workflows.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Hope this helps.
> >>> > > 
> >>> > > Alan Huntley
> >>> > > 
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>> > >> > From: Brad Mol <bradmol99@...>
> >>>>> > >> > Date: 2003/10/23 Thu AM 10:56:46 EDT
> >>>>> > >> > To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>> > >> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ultra Tones &
> Dedicated B&W vs ImagePrint
> &
> >>>>> > >> >       7-Color
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>> > >> > Does this mean you would prefer to use
> a 2200 over the 1280 for the
> B&W???
> >>>>> > >> > I am a bit confused as to which printer
> is better?
> >>>>> > >> > I1ll go with which ever gives me the
> best image.
> >>>>> > >> > Just tell me which one?
> >>>>> > >> > Regards....
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>> > >> > On 10/23/03 9:34 PM,
> "Alan.Huntley@..." <Alan.Huntley@...>
> wrote:
> >>>>> > >> > 
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Hi Mike,
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > 
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Your assessment of the pros/cons
> of each "solution" seems
> >>>>>>> about right. I
> >>>>> > >>> just
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > moved from running an Epson
> 1160/UT inks/Roark curves to IP
> >>>>>>> 5.6 to drive
> >> > my
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Epson 2200. I have been very happy
> with both the color and B&W
> results
> >>>>> > >>> from
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > IP. BTW, IP doesn't use the yellow
> ink for B&W which, >>>>>>>
> reportedly,
> >>>>> > >>> eliminates
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > metamerism--have not noticed any
> color cast in my B&W
> >>>>>>> prints--and the UC
> >>>>> > >>> inks
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > already have a reputation for
> being pretty stable.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > 
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Overall, I have been happy with
> IP...so far. I like the fact
> that many
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > seemingly accurate paper profiles
> are free for
> >>>>>>> download--custom profiles
> >>>>> > >>> ain't
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > cheap--and, my overall workflow
> has been greatly
> >>>>> > >>> simplified...Drag-n-drop
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > image onto IP main layout window,
> select appropriate paper
> >>>>>>> profile, hit
> >>>>> > >>> print.
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Printer starts running almost
> immediately--compare that to the
> wait time
> >> > of
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > whatever spooling the Epson driver
> is doing--and I'm free to
> use my
> >>>>> > >>> machine
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > for other tasks. Less mistakes
> works for me!
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > 
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Just my 2 cents,
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > Alan Huntley
> >>>>>>> > >>> > > 
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > From: "Mike Botelho"
> <mfractl@...>
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Date: 2003/10/22 Wed PM
> 11:03:27 EDT
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > To:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > Subject: [Digital BW]
> Ultra Tones & Dedicated B&W vs
> ImagePrint &
> >>>>>>> > >>>>> 7-Color
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > 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, 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com