Digital BW, The Print

I have no idea why the formatting is all whacked out on my last message.  
Sorry.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" <
chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> 
> > 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 expe=
ri=
> 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 4=
00=
> 0's 
> performance out of the box.
> 
> I don't want to over-lawyer this, but let's look at what Epson says regar=
di=
> ng the 
> 4000 and B&W (taken from their website):
> 
> *	Significantly improves the printer's gray balance while eliminating col=
or=
>  
> 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 na=
ti=
> ve B&W
> is not "professional level."  Otherwise, why would all of these professio=
na=
> 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 th=
e 
=
> 
> possible exceptions of Greg Gorman and Vincent Versace (paid Epson 
> spokespersons) who I bet, if you sat them down in a room, would admit tha=
t 
=
> 
> they have reservations regarding B&W out of the box w. ultrachrome 
printers=
> ).
> 
> *	Produces a truly consistent image with little color crossover or colorc=
as=
> 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 prin=
ti=
> ng 
> method that produces a lime green color cast for B&W, this statement coul=
d 
=
> 
> 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 sh=
if=
> ting 
> in different lighting conditions.  And "neutral" is a word with an object=
iv=
> e 
> connotation not based solely on subjective perception, and it's clear tha=
t =
> B&W 
> w. the 4000 (and the other ultrachrome printers) is not objectively neutr=
al=
> .