Digital BW, The Print

Hi Steve,

I think you have a really good point.  With the older technology printers
the need for a dedicated B&W printer was very clear.   All the newer
7 ink UltraChrome printers come very close in output quality to the
quadtone B&W systems.   The 4000 promises to be as good or better
than the 21/2200 or the 76/9600.  The inks are the same and the specs
quote a slightly smaller dot size -- 3.5 picoliters instead of 4 pl.

I've got an old 7500 with a dedicated B&W quadtone and a friend
has a 7600 with UC's, both running with QuadToneRIP.  The results
are very comparable.  From a normal view distance they are really
indistinguishable.  Even very closeup or with a loupe the dots are just
visible with the difference being that the 7500 has bigger but lighter
dots and the 7600 has smaller but darker dots -- but the number and
spacing is the same.

Compared to a new-ish printer with dedicated inks such as 1270/1280
and UT2 inks or Piezo inks, I'd say the difference is about like a
16x20 print from a 4x5 Tri-X rather than from a 4x5 TMax-100.

So bottom line is unless you are extremely critical, we've come to a
point where you don't need a dedicated B&W.   Bigger prints make it
less and less of an issue.  So with a big, expensive printer you need
just one, but if you want smaller prints a dedicated small printer
may be more justified.

Finally, QuadToneRIP will support the 4000.  As soon as I get one
I'll have profiles for Epson UC inks up and running.

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@=
b...> 
wrote:
> Yes and you can only print to a limited size.  Someone clearly buys a 400=
0,
> 7600 or 9600 for the size.  My post was in response to a blanket statemen=
t
> that it is _simple_ and obvious that one must have two printers.  This wa=
s
> within the context of someone offering to share their experience with the=
ir
> new 4000.  I have a 2100 and have been more than happy with its output.  =
I
> too would like the extra size that a 4000 provides. I have contemplated
> purchasing a 4000 (by no means a cheap printer in the UK) in order to be
> able to print A2 and maybe even dedicating my 2100 to B&W.  However, I fe=
ar
> that will simply lead to frustration because I would be constrained in si=
ze
> for B&W vs colour.  So I applaud the efforts of those that have spent the=
ir
> time and energy helping us get very high quality B&W prints from a colour=

> ink set (and those who have made great efforts to lower the entry barrier=

> generally for those wanting to print digitally).  I love the B&W prints I=

> get using QTR and OEM inks on my 2100, for example.  Could they be improv=
ed
> by using QTR and a quad ink set? Probably.  I would love to know by how
> much.  But the decision to purchase another 2100 or much more likely a 40=
00
> (and selling my 2100) will very much be driven by economics.  Blanket
> statements that printers are cheap and that everyone doing both colour an=
d
> B&W must have too printers are simply naïve.  Statements which suggest th=
at
> people frustrated with trying to get good B&W from a colour ink set consi=
der
> two printers have merit -  if the individuals¹ concerned have budgets whi=
ch
> can afford the extra capital outlay.  Personally, if what I have been abl=
e
> to achieve with QTR and my 2100 is anything to go by I would prefer to
> satisfy my desire for larger prints with a single 4000 than two 2100s (or=
 a
> 2100 and a 1280).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> From: "Bob Michaels" <bob@b...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:26:13 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4000 B&W: neutrality and metamerism
> 
> Steve: I'm one of those who believe two printers is the way to do both
> b&w and color. My 1280 (b&w) and 890 (color) cost about $400 combined.
> That's substantially less than one 2200, waaaay less than a 4000.
> 
> It's when you've spend more for a printer than ink and paper, or more
> for a camera and lenses than you do for film, that it becomes illogical.
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]