Digital BW, The Print

I'll concede the point, Bob-having had two 1280s that didn't band 
and two that did(do) it's painfully obvious that the manufacturing 
tolerances aren't as good as they should be. Problem is, at this 
point I've returned so many printers and cashed in so many Taps the 
local CompUsa manager  is about to have a contract put out on me, so 
I don't feel comfortable trying and returning several until I get a 
perfect one. And I am asking a lot of my next printer-I need banding-
free printing on IJ tranny film, and that's a lot tougher, even the 
slightest banding becomes visible on a silver gel print. But I still 
think the 2200 is better for B&W considering the Roark & QTR support 
base-the only advantage the R1800 has is the dual-black and glop 
built in. A fairly significant advantage, I'll admit, but it's also 
been 'dummied down' quite a bit: No black printing of any kind? No 
paper thickness setting lever? 

Nevertheless, if someone runs across one that prints perfectly at 
highest quality settings I'll be happy to buy it from them.

Steve


In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@f...> wrote:
> Steven,
> 
> You can't condemn all R1800's just because you got a dud! Mine is 
great, for 
> B&W and color (using the Adobe98 setting in the driver). No 
banding.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steven Karafyllakis" <steve@s...>
> and an
> > 1800 for BW?
> 
> You've got it backwards here: The 1800 does the better color,
> especially with the premium profiles provided by Epson, but is
> worthless for B&W. The one I took back showed at least some banding
> at even the highest quality settings.