Digital BW, The Print

No, I'll say it with respect to 2200 output.  It 
isn't "photographic."  It may work with some images, but it will read 
more like a photographic etching than a photograph.  My eyes aren't 
that good anymore (after turning 40), but I can clearly see the dots.

Maybe some people like it and maybe I'd like it for other images, but 
not many people are going to mistake it for a photograph.  I just got 
back from an opening for a group show that included a MIS VM print of 
mine made on a 1160 and no one spotted it as an inkjet print, period, 
until I told them... even then they said they couldn't tell the 
difference.

If cost is no object, then get a 2200 and imageprint and you will 
have no problems, otherwise get something like the 1280 and put 
quadtones in it.

mark

...
> 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.
...
> 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
...