Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "scrber" 
<stephen.bate@m...> wrote:


> Hi there, I have just taken delivery of my 4000 and I wanted to 
give 
> you folks an insight into how I find this printer compared to the 
> numerous other systems I have seen / used.
> 
> I have used :
> 
> 1. Piezography (old version, 1290)
> 2. MIS VM inks (1290)
> 3. MIS UT inks (1290)
> 4. MIS UT2 inks (1290)
> 5. Black only printing (Eboni, 1290)
> 
> and have had exposure to 
> 
> 1. 2200 full colour B&W prints
> 2. 2200 Black only prints (ultrachrome)
> 3. 7600 full colour + IP5.6 prints.
> 
> When I saw some images I had given to Epson to demo, I was less 
than 
> happy with the output, Black ink prints were the usual dotty output 
> and the colour ink variants all had pretty bad colour shifts and 
> metamarism.  I figured the colour was fantastic, the black and 
white 
> was better than my 1280 dye prints out of the box, but not by much.
> I have since had a chance to play with the printer myself and it 
> takes pride of place in my office.  My findings have suprised me.  
It 
> sits next to two printers, both 1290s installed with MIS UT and UT2 
> hextones.
> I had to mess around with the colour settings for ages as I 
couldn't 
> for the life of me remember my colour management basics - but this 
is 
> not the printers fault...(the MIS workflow is so different).
> I have printed slightly warm toned images (full inkset), neutral 
> images (full inkset) and black only prints.  I also printed the 
same 
> image, with matched tones on the two MIS fed machines.  I laid 
these 
> all out and have asked a number of colleagues, and my wife (who 
knows 
> exactly what to look for now) which was which / which was better 
and 
> why.  The results pretty much tallied with my own conclusions.
> 1. UT2 inks have the smoothest highlight transistions but do not 
seem 
> to have the best definition and detail in the mid tones.
> 2. UT inks are well down the list (this may well be because the 
> curves used for this inkset and my 1290 printer are extreme and 
there 
> seems to be some accepted variance between printers that can cause 
> issues with tonal transitions - I actally preferred the VM set, and 
> by far the UT2)
> 3. The toned Ultrachrome 4000 prints were all but indistiguishable 
> from the sepia/warm toned UT2 prints (I had to turn them over 
myself 
> on more than one occaision).  There could be a slight tendancy 
> towards blocking of the deepest shadows and some 'split-toned' 
effect 
> as the shadows start to block but it is minimal, perhaps not as 
good 
> for really dark prints.
> 4. The neutral Ultrachrome 4000- prints were really pretty good.  
No, 
> they were not as smooth as the UT2 set, but they are acceptable to 
my 
> eyes.  Put them in a print at a foot away and you'd struggle to 
tell 
> the difference.  
> 
> The big issue though is metamarism.  It is still there and that is 
> where the difference comes between the UT2 and the Ultrachromes - 
the 
> tone WILL shift.  It is not as dramatic as in previous pigment 
> printers, but it is still there.  I assume Imageprint will get rid 
of 
> most of this, but boy is it expensive.  And there is another way....
> 
> I was frankly stunned by the 4000 black only performance.
> I have done this many times on the 1280/90 series and even on the 
> 2200 but was never totally happy with it.  Yes the luminance, 
> contrast, detail and overall impression from a framed print was 
> always stunning, but I couldn't stand those dots.  I have pretty 
keen 
> eyes and with my 4000 prints (matt only so far, Ultrasmooth and 
> Velvet art papers) I REALLY have to strain to see the dots, more 
than 
> a few inches away and they're gone.  The prints are stunning and 
> everyone picked these as the best.  No metamarism (no toning 
though, 
> unless you play with the papers you print on), no shifting with 
time 
> (the black ink seems to last for ever according to the longevity 
> tests), no colour management issues.   I honestly never thought I 
> would go this route after 4 years of trying pretty much everything 
on 
> the market, I am happy.  Incidentally, the prints that came back 
from 
> Epson were printed at 360dpi, hence the more visible dots, at 
> 1440+super it is great, still a grainy-ish apprearance, but I love 
it.
> 
> I will keep tweaking and playing, who knows, maybe I will have a 
> different opinion when I try printing high key images with lots of 
> highlights or much smoother transitions (for the minute I will keep 
> my UT2 for wedding prints - very testing subject...) I will report 
> back.
> 
> PS - the printer itself is fantastic, fast, quiet, self adjusting - 
> could have done with a 'quickstart' though - to just have a 396page 
> manual (all English) to play with was a little much...
> 
> Have fun.
> 
> Steve