Digital BW, The Print

Randy: I have a 1280 loaded with UT2 although I usually only print BO
and an 890 with color dye inks. I've never owned a 2200 but have seen
many b&w prints and a few color from. Here's my thoughts:

You can't tell the difference between a b&w print made on a 1280 and a
2200. Either BO or quadtone. The 1280/890 dye looks as good as the
2200 pigment but we know the dye will eventually fade. It appears that
the 1280 is easier to do b&w. |The 2200 infrastructure support is
building to the level that exists for the 1280. I think this is a key
point as I personally don't want to be on the leading edge figuring
out techniques for a new item. I just want to make good prints and do
it the easiest way. 

If you don't feel comfortable unless you have the latest and greatest,
consider a 2200. If all if want is to make good prints using
techniques others have developed, consider a 1280. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Rancier"
<rrancier@b...> wrote:
> Seems like the prefered machine, using MIS UT inks, for most is the 
> 1280; why is that?  Although it seems the BO folks prefer the 2200, 
> probably due to the smaller ink droplets?  I've seen both UT2 prints 
> and BO prints (printed on a 890), and I like them both, depends on 
> the image.  
> 
>  My first priority is B&W, however, I will be using the printer for 
> both B&W printing (UT & BO) and color; how does the 1280 compare 
> with the 2200 as far as color?
> Thanks,
> Randy