Digital BW, The Print

>It's a thorough review, but I don't think it addresses the 
>UT7 inks.

He never got to BW prints on matte paper with MK.  It's maddening.  I
have yet to see a review that thoroughly evaluates this from a fine
art perspective.  Everyone is going GaGa over glossy prints.

I recently downloaded & installed the 2400 driver on my laptop and
went to a store & hooked it up to the floor demo that had MK
installed, and printed a step wedge on PR in ABW neutral mode.  It
made a beautifully smooth print with no dither banding, very
impressive looking by itself.

Then I got home and did the same print/paper on my 2200 using Eboni BO
and compared them.  Here are my observations:

1) The Eboni print has better Dmax, no contest.  By itself the ABW
print looks pretty good, but next to the Eboni print it's weakness is
apparent.

2) The ABW ramp moves into black too soon, decreasing shadow
separation. Perhaps some good profiling can cure that.

3) By itself the ABW print looks neutral, but next to the Eboni print 
a variety of subtle color casts become apparent.  With a loupe the C
and M color dots can be clearly seen of course, just like any other
RIP with color inks.  

4) Again, by itself it looks pretty good, but compared to the BO
print's luminance the ABW print has that typical dull milky opaque
look common to many full ink systems.


I have several thoughts from all this.  First is the issue of how
toning is achieved.  It seems that no matter how well done, and the
2400 is as good as any I've seen, you can't entirely remove the subtle
coloration that exists when you mix color dots in with the blacks.  So
it comes down to whether one is satisfied with that kind of result.  I
know that many users are happy with RIP/color ink results, but having
used a no-color-ink approach for so long my eye detects the color and
doesn't like it.  I find the same thing in my experiments with various
UT7 mixtures and 2K approaches (the 2nd K having color toners mixed
in).   Besides coloration, there is the lower Dmax and the opaque
look.  What these all add up to is that the 2400 would not be a
satisfactory solution for me.

It seems that while BW printing technology was in its infancy all BW
folks were thrown into one camp - we all wanted something that worked
and lasted.  But now that BW technology is getting better, the users
are being segregated into groups more akin to the "dark ages".  Please
don't nitpick me on the following statement, I'm speaking in
generalities just to make a point - There were on the one hand folks
such as beginners, students, hobbyists, non-fine-art professionals,
whatever, who were satisfied with RC prints and who didn't obsess over
the finest nuances of things.  On the other hand were the fine art
zonie types who only used fiber paper and all the rest.  

Seems like the 2400 will be an ideal printer for people in the first
group.  It turns out really good looking prints if you don't examine
them with too high a standard.  But will it satisfy people in the 2nd
group?  Not me.  Even the glossy prints.  I know lot's of people have
said "WOW!" upon seeing them.  But I have examined several prints and
find them pretty good, but ultimately unconvincing compared to a good
RC silver print, mostly because of the subtle coloration.  It really
isn't neutral black, it's warm black with C and M added in an attempt
to fool the eye.  Color is color.  They simply aren't the same.

The best non-BO prints I've seen, in terms of Dmax and luminance, were
done with a 2K approach using QTR with Eboni and some sort of LK.  It
preserves enough luminance to avoid the milky opaque look and is much
smoother than BO.  The only drawback is the coloration in the LK.  My
"holy grail" is still to find a way to dilute the K, so that both inks
respond the same to the paper the way Eboni BO does.  That will avoid
the coloration look and side-step any longevity issues associated with
color inks.  So I'll stick with the 2200 for now.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm