Digital BW, The Print

The behavior I described is indeed true unless, as I said twice, the
product has been upgraded, so thank you for the additional info. I
used it for years, it's behavior was well known, you can certainly ask
any respected expert out there that wrestled with it and they will
agree. I tossed it long ago, certainly don't have any proof lying
about, it's sort of like asking for proof that circles are round.
Aside from the above though, if the current Epson RIP will indeed let
you run a long K utilizing both the dark and light K inks then my
apologies for misleading the poster.
On the other hand, my suspisions would be that it still behaves as it
always did, RGB in with preconfigured K gen, with any single K Epson
printer, it would be worth checking out.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson"
<pnweb@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
> > It was made available for proofing on Epsons
> > from page layout programs or others requiring postscript rendering,
> > EPS, fonts, etc.
> > Everything sent to it, including CMYK, will be converted back to 
> RGB
> > and a new K will be generated similar, if not identical, to the 
> Epson
> > driver's K generation.
> 
> This simply is not true.   See:
> 
> http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22003.htm
> 
> I wish when people post comments like this they would provide the 
> supporting evidence and images!    I found the BW output of the IP 
> RIP and the Epson RIP to be almost identical and both were WAY 
> better than the default Epson driver for BW printing.   The Epson 
> RIP was also way cheaper.   Anyway it's a moot point now because the 
> Epson RIP appears to be history.