Digital BW, The Print

>anyone doing any fade testing on these yet?

I have not done any fade testing with this printer yet.  However, I believe
the claimed longevity is just slightly better than the 2200 color images.
Unlike the 2200, it will not get better lightfastness with B&W images
because the color pigments are not being replaced by more lightfast carbon.
So, the B&W lightfastness will be closer to the HP with swellable media than
to a B&W pigment printer that uses predominantly carbon for the B&W images
-- either a quad or an UltraChrome printer with a good RIP.

> ... www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml ...
> states that the R800 prints glossy with "no bronzing whatsoever". ...

The initial reviews have been very positive.  

From my perspective, however, I don't see how I'd be able to control the
machine for quads, and I'm not satisfied with color pigment B&Ws, even if
they look good initially.  The lightfastness and differential fading issues
do not appear to have been solved. 

> He explains that the R800 has replaced light cyan and light majenta
>cartridges with blue and red cartridges.

Yes, and this makes the control difficult with RGB curves.

The blue and red pigments might be very interesting.  I'm exploring
non-traditional-inkjet pigments for B&W inksets also.  Since I'm not stuck
with CMY for color, I'm finding potentially better solutions with various
red and blue pigments that are available.   I'm sure Epson is looking at
some of the same factors I've found.  The general pigment field is huge, and
I think I've found and learned enough now to make inksets from the ground up
(so to speak).  I have some initial mixes that I'll be fade testing soon.

>He says the R800 doesn't have the light black cartridge 

And thus does not have the ability to make more lightfast B&W prints.

> but does have a cartridge called a "gloss optimizer".  It is this
>cartridge which lays down over the whole print a "varnish" that completely
>does away with bronzing. 

The gloss optimizer equalizes the acrylic particle covering.  It "fires
blanks" where the pigment load is light.  So, there will not be gloss
differentials, at least to the same degree as the UltraChrome printers. 

I suspect that, although it is more work, the protective and fixative nature
of the post-printing sprays could be a superior solution.  I wonder if the
R800 glossy prints can pass my "wet paper towel" test.

I'm not being critical of Epson's solution here.  It's innovative and will
solve the visual problems for most glossy paper printers.  

I think, however, that the B&W fanatics and purists will be less impressed
than the casual printers.  The bottom line result of the advances in both
the dye and pigment printers will probably be that the consumer B&W market
will be largely taken by the large companies -- no real surprise here.  It
was just a matter of time.  For the real purists a dedicated B&W system or
expensive RIP may still have sufficient advantages that it will be worth the
additional work and/or expense.  Although I'll try to keep the advantages
available to all in entry level machines like the cheap C84.

>... dinosaur status and a severe drop in value ...

There will always be something better next year.  

I'm still in line for a 4000, which will probably end up a dedicated B&W
printer.  

I know the 4000 is less than perfect, but what I'd want is one more, light
gray ink and a driver that could do the range of pure carbon to full color
within a single image.  A color-ink based B&W system isn't on my wish list.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com