Digital BW, The Print

When you made the B&W prints with the R800 did you set the driver for 
black only printing?  An earlier post by Ed also indicated that the 
driver does not behave as expected - that is it uses color inks even 
though black ink only is specified.  I wonder if this is intentional on 
Epson's part or if there is a problem with the current version of the 
printer driver.

On Thursday, February 19, 2004, at 01:34  AM, sanfo2003 wrote:

> Was down at the local CompUSA where they were just putting out their
> first demo R800. Really nice folks there and they gave me total
> access to the printer thru a Mac and even gave me a stack of Epson
> Premium Glossy and Enhanced Matte paper and said, "Tell us what you
> think when you're done." The lighting in the store was awful, seemed
> like mercury vapor lights or something, but fortunately is was
> daylight outside and they said to feel free to take prints outside
> the store to check out -- obviously this place is gonna get my
> business!
>
> The color prints with the glossy clearcoat, in my opinion, were
> nothing short of stunning and set a new standard; but it was BW I was
> most interested in. To summarize BW: not as good as meticulus
> techniques with third party quad inksets but light years ahead of
> anything out of the box by Epson yet. It seems Epson has finally not
> totally ignored BW in a printer. The glossy coating on Premium Glossy
> using "Black" printing gives a cool-toned print and looks very
> similar to conventional 8x10 glossy celebrity publicity photos I've
> seen. Metamerism between the awful store lighting and daylight was
> noticable but just barely. Colored inks are definitely used to print
> BW and I could see at least Cyan and Magenta being used as the ink
> was being laid down. Prints on EAM were smooth and cool-neutral. Also
> no cartridge change from glossy to matte -- nice! As a side note, I'd
> love to see someone do a shootout with ImagePrint on the 2200 vs. the
> R800's stock BW output.
>
> The retail price was $400. If this same machine could print 13x19 I
> would have bought it in a heartbeat. It blows the 2200 out of the
> water so I guess that's why its not made in the larger size, YET.