Digital BW, The Print

Paul, I understand what you say about using the C82 for getting my 
feet wet BUT I have a daily use printer in my HP932C (ink consumer 
maximus) As to the idea of 16X20 display prints I have no where to 
display such a large print not in my home and I have NO intentions of 
any sort of gallery display. (have already had my fill of hobby 
business with 14 years as a custom knifemaker) My photography is for 
me, my friends, and family oh and the occasional wedding or high 
school grad photo I shoot (all processed by the local Pro lab) So a 
13X19 will be plenty of over kill for me. I do like the idea of the 
UT-2 inkset and the simpler way of doing things compared to the extra 
computer time with the 2200 etc. And the price differance between a 
C82 and a 1280 is not a concern for me. I just want to know what I'm 
buying brings the results I am paying for. It sounds as if the 1280 
will do that for me.

Mark W.






-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> >Will the image quality of a 1280 be noticably better than the 
C82 ...
> 
> Most viewers of prints would see no difference.  Very critical 
viewers might
> notice that the C82 highlights are not quite as smooth as the 
1280's.  (But
> the C82 highlights are about like the 2200 with ImagePrint, which 
many
> high-end printers on this list have and find very acceptable.)  
> 
> I think a slightly more important difference is that the C82 does 
not
> deliver the dmax that the 1280 does; that is, the blacks are not 
quite as
> black.  The C82 is going to peak out with Epson Enhanced Matte at 
about 1.59
> and PhotoRag at perhaps 1.60.  With the 1280 EEM has been hitting 
1.64 -
> 1.68 and PhotoRag 1.64.  (Of course, the old 3000 and PhotoRag beat 
this
> handily with a 1.71.)  With EEM and PhotoRag, I think the C82 depth 
of black
> is fine for many people and shots.  With some of the other cotton 
papers,
> the C82 is weaker.
> 
> So, if one is really into photography as a serious hobby, wanting 
to try
> lots of different papers, etc., then the 1280 is a significantly 
more
> versatile printer.  (Once the "Easy UT-2" -- or whatever it's going 
to be
> called -- is available for the 1280, it'll be the best of both 
worlds in
> terms of ease and versatility, but at a bit higher price than the 
C82.)
> 
> On the other hand, for budget-minded photographers who ultimately 
want
> impressive 16x20 display prints, I can see them testing the waters 
of
> digital B&W printing with a C82 and then jumping to a 3000 (or 
4000), and
> keeping the little C82 for daily printing and snapshots.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com