Digital BW, The Print

> >Secondly, I find significant shifts in colour due to different 
> >papers types with my UT inks at the moment.
> 
> Yes, papers print differently.  I find some of the acid-free matte 
papers
> print with cold shadows, for example.  I like to neutralize these.
> 
> >  For example, my Imajet matt has a slightly green tinge
> 
> I'm not familiar with it.  
> 
> I find the UT inkset verges on too magenta in the shadows with some 
papers.
> The tones have been compromises among the papers that I believe are 
most
> often used.  A full color inkset with a full grayscale inkset is the
> ultimate, but it may be hard to control accurately without a very 
good RIP.
> 
> (An MIS customer is going to try to set up a 7000 -- with RIP, I 
assume --
> with a black, 2 grays, and 3 colors.  I'm skeptical that the 7000 
is up to
> the job.)
> 
> >the somerset velvet slightly magenta and PR/EAM neutral.
> 
> You can see how I weighed the papers for the balancing -- EEM for 
drafts, PR
> for final cotton prints.  UltraSmooth was also up there in 
importance.

Exactly, and totally agree, a great way to meet the paper needs of 
both.  Great shame that Epson don't support Ultrasmooth here in the 
UK with anything other than wide format rolls.  I hope this may 
change with at least 17" cut sheet for the 4000.

> 
> The UT-2 inks are close to the densities that the driver and papers 
were
> designed for.  As such, they print nicely with no controls.  
> 
> When RGB curves are used, they can be very detailed, but very 
simple ones
> work amazingly well.  (That is one reason the sliders work to 
control the
> inks.)  As an example, I have an RGB neutral curve where the main 
cyan (cold
> inkset) and magenta (carbon warm inkset) curves start and end at 
(0,0) and
> (255, 255).  Then in the interior, there are just 3 points -- one 
each at
> 50%, 25% and 75%.  So, one can control the midtone, highlight and 
shadow
> relative tones very easily with simple up or down moves of these 
few points.
> This is easy enough that I think many will be comfortable getting 
into it to
> profile to their liking.
 

That does sound like a dream system.  Perhaps one the OEMS will have 
their eye on.  If common drivers work, the OEMs could just use ICC 
profiles to support B&W inksets I guess.  
I really look forward to that tunability - I miss it a little, I 
daren't mess with your curves again (it's a little like witchcraft I 
think - In past days you'd have been dunked in the river  ;-)  ) 

 
> >Jumping the gun entirely, any idea how quickly MIS / yourself will 
> >respond to the 4000 release?  
> 
> I think it would be easier for me to port the inkset to the 2200 
first.
> There may need to be changes made for these printers, but I expect 
the 2200
> and 4000 to be very close.  So, I'll probably borrow a 2200 first 
to set it
> up.  Then, (assuming I'm successful), I'll order the 4000.  I hope 
to do the
> 2200 project in January.

Excellent news!  I assume it's a case of working out the driver 
differences and scratching the head until you come up with a way to 
ustilise position 8.  I may well join the wait list / beta list in 
anticipation.  Just out of curiosity - MIS support these large format 
printers with re-filled carts or what?
Are these inksets going to be good for semi-matt / luster?  I cannot 
remember reading if you had many any 'bronzing' comments on the UT2 
set yet.

One final thought...  What about that 'glosseriser' or whatever the 
heck they call it.  The clear 'laquer' layer that comes with the new 
ultraglossy inkset.
Could this not be used for the spare ink position in the 4000 and 
leave us in the wonderful position where we don't have to spray or 
worry about bronzing.  Thinking out loud though, how do you control 
it?  Not with curves thats for sure.  Still depends on whether they 
will support the ultraglossy inkset and provide the relavent driver 
interface I guess - still, a possibility right?

Thanks again for the overview and good luck.
Steve