Digital BW, The Print

Photo paper? No contest.  K3 is well worth it.

Matte paper? Hmmm.  As I have said before, 3 greys in K3 vs 2 in K2 is a not
necessarily a slam dunk decision.  Someone like Tyler would jump at the
chance if K3 were all that was available - he wants 7 or more and if he can
have 3 rather than just 2 then he's ahead.  How much are you prepared to pay
for the extra fidelity?  The original post asked also about K3 vs, say, UT7.
Even more difficult.  In this comparison you have 3K on both sides - but one
side doesn't do colour (and is not too great at the moment on photo paper).
Does 3K give you enough B&W fidelity such that the ability to also do high
quality colour with the same printer/ink set make it compelling?  Quite
possibly but still a very personal decision.  Someone who wants more than 3K
for B&W would likely not be prepared to compromise his B&W for the ability
to do colour.  Personally, I see little reason to run a dedicated B&W ink
set in my 4800 to get more than the 3K I have (I reserve the right to change
my mind if I ever get to see some of Tyler's prints!).  I also do colour so
I am very happy to have a very good B&W solution and a very good colour
solution in the same box.  Was 2K enough for this?  Personally I tried the
MIS 3K solutions and found they had advantages.  Such alternatives do not
overwhelm me now that I have 3K standard.

There is no easy answer to your question.


> From: john dean <deanwork2003@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:10:13 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2400 Vs. 2200  (4800 vs 4000, 7800 vs.......)
> 
> Fact is I'm sure there are plenty of people who have both of these
> inksets out there to compare, especilly with the 22/2400 machines. The
> problem is getting someone who is using the QTR rip to have them both.
> Roy does.
> 
> We're not talking about the Epson driver here. I would expect a big
> improvement over that original sad system they were using that sucked
> so bad. That is precisely why we abandoned it in the first place. They
> couldn't even make generic color profils that were usable. As far as
> software goes Epson is playing catch up at best.
> 
> John