Digital BW, The Print

> 1.  If I buy IJC/OPM today for my Epson 2200 will I be able to use 
> the same software with an Epson 4000 that I may buy two years from 
> now?

The Epson 4000 is currently supported by IJC/OPM. But I wouldn't 
bet on which printer will be supported in the future or what software
will be "best" two years out.  Everything changes.




> 
> 2.  I would be using pre-made profiles for IJC/OPM.  If I do not 
> have a spectophotometer, and do not plan to buy one, is there a 
> particular advantage to using IJC/OPM over the Epson drivers 
> (especially with the newer "nuetral gray" Epson profiles)?

If you are happy with what you are getting and your workflow,
no need to fix what's not broken. I personally have found that
having individual control of the ink flow at each nozzle is a huge
advantage in controlling the print quality. Others, like Paul Roark
have turned to RGB curves and use the Epson driver to deliver
equally good prints. It's up to you in the end.

You don't need an expensive spectro; a densitometer will do
as long as it is accurate and calibrated. Your print quality
will ultimately depend  on your ability to make profiles custom
tailored to your own printing set up. If you are not up to that
job, you'll still get OK prints with canned profiles from
any software that offers them. They'll just be a bit
more "generic" and if you get any breaks in the grayscale
you will not be able to address them on your own.

The strength of IJC and the logic behind spending the money
at all is to make it easy to make or tweak your own profiles.
If you are going the canned route, consider Paul's curves
and Roy's QTR (though of course you can make custom
profiles there too, I am just not as familiar with that
interface as I am with IJC). Either are less expensive than
IJC.
 



> 
> 3.  I read alot about IJC/OPM's rich toning feature set, but why 
> tone with IJC/OPM at all?  Isn't it 100% better to tone in 
> photoshop, preview the results via soft proofing and print from 
> photoshop?

As I said, there is no reason to change what works best for you.
 Those who tone via print driver, prefer to work in grayscale, 
and let the profile or curve do the toning. Softproofing is still 
possible via ICC profiling of the output.  
But there is nothing wrong with working
in RGB and using ICC profiles (custom or OEM) to get the
color you need.




> 
> 4.  It sounds like there is no soft proofing for IJC/OPM, do you 
> have to create 10 to 20 prints before you get it right (for each 
> photograph), or is the print with the canned IJC/OPM profiles 
> reasonably close to the RGB or Grayscale on a calibrated screen (in 
> photoshop or other editing software)?

To preview the coloration of the print you can use ICC profiling
techniques for softproofing (has been discussed here by many).
You may also find it easier to just match the densities on screen
and not worry about coloration (the hue of the gray). In that
case, OPM gives you a choice between gamma 1.8 and 2.2.
On a calibrated system (and correctly set up Photoshop color
prefs) you'll come really really close, except that the deep shadows
in the print may look a bit lighter than the screen. You can
always make a simple dot gain curve by eye to make up for that.

The goal of "absolutely" matching print to monitor to where
you can't tell which is which is really tough to get and
involves other factors like lighting and print placement etc. 
Ultimately your eyes (which is to say your brain) does a lot
of compensating. The goal is only to minimize that extra "work".




> 
> 5.  Given my situation as described above, what would be the 
> greatest advantage of using IJC/OPM over the latest Epson Driver and 
> newest Epson profiles?

Perhaps none. See above.


> 
> 6.  Fundamentally speaking, without regard to the individual tank 
> control, is IJC/OPM all that different than Epson's gray balancer 
> that I struggled with years ago?

Yes. The gray balancer has frustrated a lot of people because it's
controls are indirect. You are better off getting a custom ICC
profile made for your set up. IJC gives you direct control. No
guesswork. It also provides some automation in regards to
linearizing so you don't have to go crazy making print after
print until the grayscale is smooth all across.


> 
> If I knew, when I started, how 
> maddening this process would become I might not have begun. 

 True, there is a learning curve, and, true,
there are many choices, but once you pick one of them and
learn the ropes, it's real easy. I find I can print with anything
on anything using any Epson supported by IJC/OPM and do
so by quickly throwing together a profile - or tweaking an
existing one. I do use an X-Rite densitometer or an eyeOne,
but the process is straightforward and not time consuming.
There is nothing I'd call "maddening" at that point. I am sure
it will seem pretty logical to you as well - assuming you need
to go this route in the first place (vs staying in RGB as you have).

Antonis