Digital BW, The Print

Amen to that!

I understand MIS makes pigment based ink for the 1280 that they say 
is supposed to match or excede the Ultrachrome permanance!

Thanks for you insight

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels" 
<bob@b...> wrote:
> 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