Digital BW, The Print

Don,
  I have a c82 and appreciate your remarks. However, I do not feel
that I could acheive your results without additional info. I have seen
many posts on this subject here and am still unclear what to order,
what ink slots to put it in.
 Do you feel your prints are "dotless" enough given the drop size of
the C82 vs newer printers?
  Can you please tell us precisely how you run the C82 to get these
results.
1. What inks do you put in each position
2. The precise names of the non-Epson papers you use
3. What you do to get your screen to match the print using, I presume,
Photoshop CS
4. What if any settings you change when you change papers

                          Thank you,

                        Stuart



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Don M <don@m...>
wrote:
> 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 has all been superceded by UT2 and Paul's curves which permit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