Digital BW, The Print

Others may disagree or have different thoughts but to me the big advantage
of the 2200 vs other less expensive printers (e.g. the 1280) is the
"archival" UC inks in the 2200 for color printing. If you're going to black
and white only using MIS or Piezography inks that advantage disappears and
the 1280 becomes a very viable choice at about half the price and no need
for a RIP. If you're going to use the UC inks in the 2200 for black and
white printing I'll think you'll have to do something  else e.g. add a RIP,
print black only using the MIS Eboni black, etc. etc.  I own both printers,
both do an excellent job for the szie prints they're capable of making (I
have MIS VM inks in the 1280, to be replaced by UT2 as soon as I run out of
VM,  and use the 2200 for black-only with MIS Eboni black and the occasional
color print).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kipduff" <kipduff@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Is Epson 2200 good choice?

I've been doing some digital stuff on my 980 and 2000P, but I'm
mostly a BW photographer and I have 25 years of film to work with
(alot of my work was 8" x 10" contact printing- it's tuff to
approach that kind of tonal quality).  Trying to print BW on the
2000P is sad- I believe the 2200 is possibly a good choice because
of the grey ink cartidge.  I've spent alot of time looking at the
Piezography site, but am thinking the UC 7 color system might work
(or MIS).  I have a full time day job, but I'm starting to get back
into photography and need advice on what setup works well for BW.
I'm seeing used 2200's for $400 and up- I don't feel like commiting
to a 4000 at this point because digital BW printing is evolving so
much.  RIP's?  Thanks alot, Kip (714 337-0961, SoCal area).