Digital BW, The Print

> As for your second point, the Epson 4000 DOES do good B&W right out of 
the 
> box, so that makes your statment obsolete.


Hang on now.  I have an Epson 4000.  It does produce "good" B&W out of the =

box and in fact produces slightly better B&W out of the box than the 2200 o=
r 
the 9600 (I have the 9600 currently and had a 2200).  But the 4000 does not=
 
produce neutral B&W, nor does it produce non-metamerismic B&W.  The 
prints are still warm and still have color shifting in different light.  So=
, I'm not 
contesting that the 4000 is a bit better in this regard, but from my experi=
ence, it 
wouldn't be accurate for anyone to see the 4000 as a vast improvement for B=
&
W.  For exhibition or sale quality B&W, I would not be satisfied w. the 400=
0's 
performance out of the box.

I don't want to over-lawyer this, but let's look at what Epson says regardi=
ng the 
4000 and B&W (taken from their website):

*	Significantly improves the printer's gray balance while eliminating color=
 
casts 

Incorrect.  "Eliminates" is an objective standard meaning that something no=
 
longer exists.  Untrue -- there is still a clearly noticeable color cast.

*	Dramatically improves the midtones and highlights for smoother transition=
s 

Maybe.  No comment on this one.

*	Enhances the ICC profiling process for ColorSync™ and ICM™ workflows

Uh, OK, I'll give them this one, since it's so vague that it doesn't mean 
anything.

*Professional Level Black & White Photographic Printing

Incorrect again.  I suppose I'd have to convene an expert panel, but the 
proliferation of 3rd pty inks and RIPs is sufficient evidence that the nati=
ve B&W
is not "professional level."  Otherwise, why would all of these professiona=
ls be 
spending thousands of extra dollars.  I do not know of and have not read a =

statement by a single professional photographer who produces exhibition or =

sale B&W just using the native Epson driver and ultrachrome inks (with the =

possible exceptions of Greg Gorman and Vincent Versace (paid Epson 
spokespersons) who I bet, if you sat them down in a room, would admit that =

they have reservations regarding B&W out of the box w. ultrachrome printers=
).

*	Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover or colorcas=
ts 

Please.  I assume I don't need to detail why this is untrue or at least 
misleading.  I guess "little" is relative, so yes, compared to say a printi=
ng 
method that produces a lime green color cast for B&W, this statement could =

be objectively true.  And I'll admit that B&W is "consistent" in that you 
consistently get non-neutral metamerismic prints using the native driver.

*	Reduced metamerism on 7-color black & white& prints 

Reduced compared to what?  The 2200/7600/9600?  Perhaps slightly, if 
measured with an electron microscope, so this statement could be seen as 
literally true.  But still misleading.

*	Depending upon media, produces a black D-max up to 2.1 

OK.

*	Produces sellable quality neutral or toned black and white prints

Nope, unless you're selling to someone who's colorblind or likes color shif=
ting 
in different lighting conditions.  And "neutral" is a word with an objectiv=
e 
connotation not based solely on subjective perception, and it's clear that =
B&W 
w. the 4000 (and the other ultrachrome printers) is not objectively neutral=
.