Digital BW, The Print

Ara wrote:
>...thank you for your prompt reply! But, this implies that the
>quality of photo prints would be equal to those obtained using a
>higher end, photo dedicated Epson printers?
>
>Ara G.

I can't speak from experience yet.  Hopefully soon!
Let me repost something I saved from this forum, posted by Matthew Born:

BEGIN REPOST:
I picked up a C82 when Paul first made the EZ ink set. My plan then was to
use it for the occasional glossy print using the photo K ink. I'd been using
UT in my 1280 for matte prints, my primary need, for a while. Paul then
reported he'd gotten nice prints in the C82 using the EZ color inks along
with the original Epson 'durabrite' black ink. These prints would be less
archival, of course (vs. the full EZ set), but I had no intention of selling
prints off this machine, so I was intrigued. (And in truth the durabrite
inks should be a big step up from regular dyes anyway -- I'd expect these
prints to last a while under proper circumstances.) I figured it wouldn't
cost anything to try this combo and -- if it worked -- I'd have a nifty
little printer that could print on both glossy and matte. (Of course, this
has all been superceded by UT2 and Paul's curves which permit printing on
both surfaces with the Eboni black anyway...thus, my C82 is almost never
used anymore). However, I gotta say -- that combination in the C82 produces
mind-bogglingly good prints. To think Epson claimed the 2200 would make B&W
prints out of the box...the C82 with that ink combination kicks it to the
curb, calls it names, and pours hot coffee over its head. In fact, I can
only just barely see the difference between it and the 1280, at least with
the durabrite K in there. All for about $125, including the EZ ink purchase.
And with zero experimentation on my part.

I've thought about trying the media setting changes to see if I can detect
any dmax difference on the C82 (re: under printing w/color) but have not
done so. I'll try it today. Of course, I am still using the durabrite K in
there, so I dunno how my results are skewed anyway. If I recall the
conversations back then correctly, I'm getting a little better dmax from the
durabrite black as it is.

As for other papers, the only things I've run through it are EEM, photo rag,
Epson Premium semigloss, and Ilford pearl. All have fed and printed
perfectly. And even though it sits literally for two or three weeks without
use it never clogs.

IMHO, this should absolutely be the break-in way to digital B&W for almost
everyone. For lots and lots of people they'll never need anything more. It's
painfully easy and the results are amazing -- no qualifications, either --
just plain first-rate.

And I must once again thank Paul Roark for his tireless work and astonishing
generosity. The joy of photography has returned for me because the digital
workflow actually works now...I shoot film, process it, scan it, and print
using UT inks. Step four had been the obstacle for a long time. No longer is
A&I siphoning off my son's college fund...

Matthew Born