Digital BW, The Print

Scott, I think the 2000 was good with color generally (particularly with matte) as I understood it, but much worse with b/w with much more metamerism than the 2100/2200.  I will also say that a UK photographer friend who I think knows what he's talking about had a 14n for primarily landscape work.  He said it took working with and learning its foibles (he's primarily a Nikon shooter, but wanted full frame/resolution)--but he's recently sold it and bought the new Nikon and is accepting the compromise.  His online shots with the Kodak were lovely.

Diane
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: scott_now_coming 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 12:01 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 2200 discontinued?



  Interesting.

  I thought the R1800 was going to be the replacement for the 2200.

  Incidently, a week ago I viewed some 11x14" color prints mounted 
  behind glass tat were made on an Epson 2000. Iwas really impressed.

  The files were from a Kodak 14n. Now I was floored! I never heard 
  anything but negative comments on both pieces of equipment.

  Just goes to show ya'.... lol!

  Scott


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]