Digital BW, The Print

I retract part of my statement: I see from your other thread that you 
do indeed have a 4000 (and a problem with agression).  I'll further 
add that I am quite familiar with the "printer color management/color 
controls" method of printing B&W, having used it for almost 2 years 
with the 2200.  I'll also add a tidbit for consideration:

(1) From Photo-i's review: "There is no doubt that the Gray Balancer 
has added something to the b/w pictures, I managed to remove the 
slight warm cast and produce a near neutral print - I say near 
neutral to cover myself, but all said and done the prints are about 
as neutral as I would want."

Note that he said WITH the gray balancer, he gets a NEAR neutral 
print.  The gray balancer is not an out of the box solution for North 
Americans, since Epson won't let you have it, and it doesn't run on 
OS X (for those of us using Macs).




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc" 
<chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> 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=
> > > &