Digital BW, The Print

Hi All,

In contrast, M.Reichmann has had the opposite opnion on the 4800. He
'prefers' the BW prints with his 4000 and Imageprint RIP versus the
4800 ABW option. Which am I to believe?

Am currently in the market to purchase a 4000 or a 4800 but with the
ink dump statistics of the 4800, I'm keen to lean on the 4000. Plus
Epson having firesale prices for the 4000. Any advice?

Thanks
Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "yohnnyboy"
<chhopk@l...> wrote:
> >My only question is: are B&W prints from the 2400 better than a 2200 
> >w/Bowhaus RIP (or 
> >Image Print).  I only print in B&W as a hobbist.
> >
> >Martin
> 
> Martin
> 
> BW prints made on the Epson 2200, 2400, and 4800 using Rips or Epsons 
> advanced Black and White solution all function in essentially the 
> same way. The printer uses 2 to 3 different black inks with various 
> dilutions. If you take a look at a step wedge (from 0% to 100% black)
> created with these inks you will see an extremely warm profile that 
> changes color throughout the density scale. Color inks are layed down 
> to cool off the basic "warm-black" inks to give neutral B&W tones. 
> That's the idea but it isn't so simple to implement. RIPS allow the 
> user to fine tune the ink amounts and curves to adjust the tones for 
> individual tastes.
> 
> I tried both QTR and the more expensive IJC-OPM RIP from BOWHAUS. 
> Using their canned profiles, EPSON UC inks on "glossy RC type papers" 
> I was astonished to see how bad the results were. After spending 
> serious money on IJC-OPM I just couldn't believe the horrible bluish-
> cyan tones in the prints. The nice thing about the RIPS, however, is 
> that you can tweek the profiles and ink limits to fine tune the 
> output for your printer and your own personal tastes. After learning 
> to do that I was able to create my own profiles that worked 
> with "some images." The only profiles that I found acceptable 
> produced prints that were always somewhat warm toned. In my hands 
> with a 2200, I was never able to get an acceptable "neutral print" 
> using Ultrachrome inks that I could use to replace silver prints. I 
> can say the same for my tests of Imageprint. 
> 
> The new K3 inks used in the 2200/4800 are not as warm toned as the 
> older Ultrachrome inks. They are intrinsically easier to "cool off" 
> to neutral. In addition, their bronzing and gloss differential 
> characteristics are vastly improved over the ultrachrome inks. To my 
> eye, the test prints of my own images made from an Epson 4800 in the 
> advanced black and white mode are superior to that of a 4000 even 
> when the 4000 is driven by Imageprint. The new K3 inks used in the 
> 4800 and the better dither patterns of this advanced printer lead to 
> a smoother, more appealing B&W image with more neutral tones. I can't 
> explain this scientifically but my own emotional response to prints 
> with ultrachrome inks is "OK I can use this as a test print but I 
> don't dare even give it away" With a 4800, my response is "its not 
> absolutely perfect but I feel comfortable selling this print with my 
> name on it." The gloss characteristics of the new K3 inks are really 
> spectacular when compared to UC inks. When you look at a print with 
> some rich dark tones you still see a smooth homogeneous gloss. This 
> homogeneity is important to a viewers emotional response to the 
> image. With ultrachrome inks the darkest tones lose gloss. This 
> combined with the awfull bronzing give ultrachrome prints a less than 
> satisfactory appeal on RC papers. K3 inks only begin to have gloss 
> problems in the extreme highlights where the uninked paper surface 
> begins to come through. 
> 
> To sum up: for my tastes a 2400/4800 print already beats a 
> 2200//Imageprint//QTR//IJC/OPM print. There is no contest to me. I am 
> not knocking the RIPS. They are great software. I am just saying that 
> the new K3 Epson printers are technologically superior and the older 
> printers cannot offset this difference by using a RIP. When the RIPS 
> support the 2400/4800 printers the gap will only widen. Remember that 
> everthing I have said here is subjective and is only my opinion 
> resulting from my own emotional responses. If you can you should test 
> for yourself. QTR can be evaluated at no charge. The same used to be 
> true for Imageprint on a MAC platform. I have not had good luck with 
> MIS inks. But many on this site have had great success. You might see 
> if those inks appeal to your tastes.
> 
> There is photographer on this list that I greatly respect named Joel 
> Pickford. Quite a while back Joel talked about his 6 month testing of 
> ultrachrome inks and RIPS. He stated that it was impossible to make 
> what he considered to be "fine prints" with ultrachrome inks even 
> with a RIP and he tried them all. At the time I laughed because I 
> didn't believe him. Now after 4 months of my own testing I find that 
> my tastes are similar to Joel's.  Joel also incited EPSON to step up 
> to the plate and make a new printer for B&W printing using 3 black 
> inks. Well Joel, Epson has done so. I would love to hear what you 
> think of their product.