Digital BW, The Print

At 06:13 PM 12/4/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
>I usually agree with you, but for sheer punch nothing can beat Premium
>Glossy on a 1280/90 with Epson dye inks, IME. Even Cibachrome addicts admire
>it. But if I wanted to sell a picture or give one away, the Ultrachromes are
>the way to go because of their longer life, and the 2200/2100 is the
>cheapest way to use them.
>
>Having finally stumped up for IP 5.6 for my 2100, the B&W prints on Epson
>Semigloss or Glossy Paper Photo Weight (=ProGlossy?) are amazing. On matte
>papers images are simply too flat and lifeless for my liking.
>
>Bob Frost.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
>
>The only sense in which I'd say the 1280 is "better" is if you like the
>wider gamut and denser blacks of the standard dye inks. In every other way
>that I can think of, the 2200 is a better printer: seven ink colors instead
>of six, individual ink carts, 2880x1440 instead of 2880x720, FireWire
>interface, paper cutter, better color management controls in the driver.


Paul,

My "virgin" 1280 color print is a mind blower. I printed it on premium 
glossy paper with absolutely no fiddling  - non-profiled monitor  - from a 
E3200 scanned Portra neg.  I look at it to raise my spirits when things 
aren't going swimmingly with B/W.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us