Digital BW, The Print

Hello Mark,

>If I get an Epson Printer (which model not yet decided)and I 
>decide to try black only printing...

The people who say bad things about Black Only printing, things such
as it has poor gradients, or rough tonal transitions, and so on, are
usually reporting their experience based on older printers.  After
their disparaging remarks they usually follow it by saying they are
using an 1160 or a 1200 or a 2000 or something like that.  These
printers have larger and non variable droplet size with coarser
resolution.

The newer printers that print at 2880 dpi with 4pl (or less) variable
droplet size (1280, 2200, etc) do a superb job with the BO technique.
 I used an 870 (4pl, variable, 1440dpi) for a long time and got very
good results, but a few months ago I began using a 2200 (4pl,
variable, 2880dpi), and the results from going to 2880 have improved
enormously.

These new prints are incredibly good (and with Eboni ink they are
stable as well).  The dots are so fine that you'd never know it was BO
if you weren't looking for it with a magnifier.  The tonal gradations
are smooth and subtle (the gritty look is gone), and the resolution is
as fine as the best of the other methods (I printed the Tech
Exchange print and compared it to the others in the review - it has
good clean resolution lines at 7.2 lp/mm both vertical and
horizontal).  

Before the outraged jump all over me and mis-quote me and accuse me of
saying things I didn't say, let me state clearly that I am not saying,
nor have I ever said, that BO prints are better than the really good
dotless methods that are out there.  All I am saying is that BO can
produce excellent and beautiful prints, with a minimum of fuss, bother
and expense, with the added advantages of 

1) being able to print color and BW on the same printer 

2) produces beautiful luminous prints because the paper surface is an
active part of the image (they don't have that opaque look that so
many of the other systems have)

3) _really_ good D-max (a few days ago I showed one of my new
prints to a friend who uses UT/Eboni inks in a 7500 with Roark curves;
When I asked him if the fact that it was BO stood out in any way he
said, "Only that I noticed you're getting better D-max than I am").

BO printing is a great way for someone to get started, especially when
they have no experience and don't know how to choose from among all
the options.  There is so much to learn and get adjusted to, and not
everyone is a techie freak with deep pockets.  Using BO lets people
get started with minimal frustration and expense without locking them
into a particular system.  It allows them to begin developing their
PhotoShop skills without the distractions of fussing with more complex
techniques.  Soon enough they will learn the ropes and if so inclined
will be moved to try one of the other systems.  They aren't doomed to
eternal dot hell by starting that way.

I don't have any problem when someone says they don't like the BO
results, but I do tend get energized when people say things that
simply aren't true.  Please, folks, if you haven't tried BO printing
with a modern printer, then please refrain from the negative remarks.
If someone expresses interest in BO it's probably because they have
arrived at that point after reading a lot of on-line material.  Don't
try to discourage them, just steer them to a printer with at least 4pl
variable droplets.

So, Mark, if you want to try BO printing, I recommend the 1280 or the
2200 because they can do 13x19 at 2880dpi and will give you excellent
results.  Eboni ink is also available for both.   


>...will I run into any problems using Picture 
>Window as my editing program?

I don't use PWP so I can't say for sure, but I think it wouldn't
matter.  With BO printing the image is handed over to the Epson
driver, so it seems like the editor is out of the picture (so to speak
<g>) at that point.



>is there any advantage of the 2200 over one of the older 
>models (1280) handling the same size paper? 

I saw some 2880dpi BO prints from a 1280 once and if my memory serves
well I think the prints from the 2200 have better resolution.  But
this is just an impression from memory, I'd have to see them side by
side to be certain.  Also, the 2200 has rear paper feed for thicker
stock.  New products are continually being made for the 2200, and at
least one of the software products (Septone) is only for the 2200. 
2200 carts have little or no sponge in them, which may make a
difference if you get into refilling them.  In addition, from remarks
in this Forum I gather that the 2200 may have fewer clogging problems
with the UT inks than the 1280, since it is designed for pigment inks
- can anyone else verify this?  


>And which of the older models still available would be a
>good choice?

I would not get anything older than a 1280.  It's a very versatile
printer and probably has more products made for it than any other
model.  Anything older will have non-variable droplets, possibly
larger droplets, and lower resolution (1440 or even 720).


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm