Digital BW, The Print

>...one complaint users of ImagePrint have (other 
>than cost) is "doti-ness" in the highlights.  

>... should we expect similar perceived dotiness in the highlights 
>using the UT7 inkset (when it becomes available) as people complain 
>about with ImagePrint?

The UT7 inkset will have the same density light inks as the UT2.  These are
lighter than the UC light black ink.  I don't find highlight roughness to be
a problem with the inksets.

>And if so, what would be the advantage of this dedicated B&W inkset 
>over IP?  (Yes, IP costs a lot, but that 
>cost differential disappears when you take into account that you have 
>to buy a separate printer for B&W to use any grayscale inkset).

I think cost is still an issue.  The MIS inks are cheaper than Epson inks.

>Both can print on glossy or matte;

IP can't print on both glossy and matte without changing the black ink; UT2
& UT7 can.  This allows the UT2 & UT7 printers to have continuous flow
systems, extremely cheap bulk ink, and still have both paper types
available.

> both can tone B&W; both can produce neutral B&W prints.

Does the current IP allow cold to sepia range in B&W mode?

I suppose I'd like a printer that could to it all -- great B&W and color on
all media without changing the black ink.  I expect it will be here
eventually, but I'll stick with the dedicated B&W for now. 

Frankly, I was surprised how many people seemed to be clamoring for a UT2
version for the 2200, 7600, & 9600.  I rather assumed the savings of the
1280 would make it the printer of choice for the desktop, but the feedback
at the PMA was not that direction at all.  For the large format printers the
ability to avoid ink changing seems, understandably, to be the primary
source of demand for the UT7.

Then again there may be some B&W purists like me who want to avoid the
distraction of even having color ink available.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/