Digital BW, The Print

But the blacks certainly don't match up to darkroom quality.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims" <james@n...> 
wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> To your last point, definitely go with the 1280 and the MIS Inks, 
> you will be very pleased.  I use the MIS inks on the 1280 (and CIS) 
> and print using the Piezography software.  I also use a 1270 and MIS 
> variable tone inks using various curves, though I do not personally 
> get quite as good results and have spent a lot of time tweak my 
> curves.  The 1280 renders wonderful greys no matter how you go about 
> it.  Best of luck, with the support of this group, you have an 
> amazing resource at your finger tips.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> James Sims
> www.jamessims.com
> www.lightroomphotography.com
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Botelho" 
> <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> > Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting 
> > information.  I also checked out your website (which I'd actually 
> > visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a while, 
> > then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of 
> > information there also.  Let's say I'm just starting to learn just 
> > how much I have to learn.
> > 
> > I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting, 
> > including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on 
> carbon 
> > black pigment.  As someone who's quite familiar with pigments used 
> in 
> > artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure and 
> > accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink 
> > situation a bit disconcerting.  I'm used to knowing how long a 
> color 
> > will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings for 
> all 
> > pigments.  In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the individual 
> > pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of 
> (usually 
> > exaggerated) lightfastness claims.  Printing with an identified 
> > pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon 
> black 
> > is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.  And, 
> of 
> > course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes cyan, 
> > magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been 
> > identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as 
> durable 
> > as the black they are mixing with.
> > 
> > Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal 
> > reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing.  I look at 
> > pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used to 
> > buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a vague 
> > assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'.  As you know, I'm new to all 
> > this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to print 
> B&W 
> > hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the 
> Epsons 
> > and the Ultrachromes.  These are just my knee-jerk reactions, 
> > though.  I'm sure many people are getting great results with the 
> > Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or any)
> > decision about my own choices.  I'm just describing initial 
> > reactions, that's all.
> > 
> > Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very 
> > appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out 
> myself 
> > to see how it suits me.  But, since I've become fairly adept at 
> PS, 
> > even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up 
> with 
> > some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.  Also, I 
> > like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always being 
> > accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that way.  I 
> > wholeheartedly agree.
> > 
> > So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for 
> inks, 
> > workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot to 
> > think about.  Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer I'll 
> be 
> > purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll 
> > dedicate a printer to B&W.  Up until about a week ago, I was only 
> > concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main 
> > focus.  Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and now 
> > that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have no 
> idea 
> > where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount of 
> > color printing too.  I had been thinking about getting a 7600, but 
> I 
> > can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus it's 
> not 
> > like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.
> > 
> > Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it for 
> all 
> > my initial experiments and learning and then just go from there.  
> In 
> > comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and 
> even 
> > inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is 
> > rediculously affordable.  Plus, only having to mess with 2 
> cartridges 
> > is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone 
> > approach.  One question, though.  Wasn't the 1280 orignally a dye 
> ink 
> > printer?  Are there any potential problems to using pigmented inks 
> in 
> > this printer?  I read on your website that you are working on a 
> 1280 
> > plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem, 
> but I 
> > just thought I'd ask.
> > 
> > Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all just 
> > starting to sink in.  Like I said, who knows where I'll end up.  
> > Actually, that only makes things more interesting.
> > 
> > Thanks again,
> > 
> > Mike Botelho