Digital BW, The Print

Well, putting aside the profanity and unnecessary agressiveness in 
your post, I'll respond by saying that I'm certainly no Andrew Rodney 
(nor perhaps not even the mighty Scott Graham) when it comes to Epson 
printers, color management, etc.  But I have been at this for quite a 
while now, having bought the 2200 when it first came out and having 
worked with Photoshop since the early 1990s.  And I stand by my 
original statement: the 4000 does not produce neutral or non-
metamerismic B&W out of the box, nor have I read ANY review that says 
it does (see the reviews at both Photo-i and Luminous Landscape as 
well as endless posts by people who have a 4000).  I don't know how 
you can say otherwise.  Do you even have a 4000?  Perhaps you could 
explain your findings for the benefit of those of us who don't know 
what the hell we are doing.

Besides, the point of my post and others was that it does not produce 
neutral, non-metamerismic B&W OUT OF THE BOX, which implies that one 
doesn't have a degree in color management.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Graham" 
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> Then you don't know what the hell you are doing.
> 
> Scott
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
>  
>  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=
> > &