Digital BW, The Print

I want to especially thank Paul and Clayton (but many others also) 
for their contributions to this group.

This is the first time anyone in the group has heard any sort of 
noise out of me, but I have been reading and learning for quite a 
while now.  Thanks! 

The Epson C82 with your suggestion of MIS Eboni and UT Light Cyan is 
very interesting to me, but the C84 seems to an even more desirable 
printer – not just because Epson has dropped the C82.

I asked MIS today about support for the C84 but they were unable to 
give a definite answer.
Also the person I talked to didn't know about your `no curves, etc.' 
set setup for the C82.

I am wondering if anyone is planning to try this setup.
 

Sincerely,
David Polasek
dp4391@go2netmail.com




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Sean,
> 
> As to your question about the quality of the C82 color printing, 
it's
> probably subjective.  However, it's good enough for me.  I did my 
(picky
> princess) daughter's senior high school yearbook photo with it, and 
she was
> pleased.  Last year I did a wedding in color on my 1160, and the 
people were
> very pleased -- and the C82 is better than the 1160.  So, with 
matte paper I
> consider the quality to be very good.  I think the RC/glossy paper 
is where
> one might see more differences between this 4-ink printer and the 
hextone
> printers.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
> ________________________________________
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: seanstreiff [mailto:seanstreiff@e...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:54 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson C82 affordable "Carbon on Cotton"
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > Sean,
> >
> > >What are your current thoughts on using MIS-UT with C82/C84 vs.
> 1280?
> >
> > The big differences are that the 1280 can print 13" paper, the 
dmax
> is a bit
> > higher (1.62 on cotton v. 1.55, 1.66 on EEM v. 1.55), the 1280 has
> smoother
> > highlights than the C82 (unknown with respect to the C84), but the
> C82 is
> > about as good at the 2200 with IP5, so it's not bad.
> 
> 
> Paul:
> OK, thanks very much for this summary overview.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >
> > >Finally, I'd love to hear your thoughts about what to recommend 
for
> > >archival *color* printing, if you do any of that.
> >
> > Well, the 2200 is a fine machine.  However, the C82 with its color
> Durabrite
> > pigmented inks does a very good job, and it's a lot cheaper.  The
> Durabrite
> > inks appear to be essentially the same as the UltraChromes, but
> without the
> > light black -- the lightfastness and longevity are about as good.
> So, my
> > recommendation for the scrapbookers and genealogists
> 
> 
> How about budding digital photo enthusiasts (with modest wet 
darkroom
> experience)?
> 
> 
> > is to get the C82 (or
> > C84 when the carts arrive) and just switch back and forth between
> the
> > Durabrite and carbon pigs as needed.  On matte paper, I think this
> little
> > 4-ink printer at 2880 does an excellent job.   It's a great way to
> get into
> > digital printing affordably.
> >
> > Paul
> > http://www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> Thanks again for your help (I'm assuming that I'm not the only one
> benefiting from this).
> 
> -Sean