Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" <djon43@y...> wrote:

I use the Epson 2200 with Epson inks and QTR. I have never had a print I didn't like (print-
wise anyway). QTR always delivers for me.

I've also done a fair amount of BO printing and it does have its place. I like the look it gives 
to higher contrast images.

I also see no real difference between third party inks and Epson inks after placing identical 
images side by side. I don't have sophisiticated tools, just my eyes.

I stopped using the third party inks because I didn't think it was necessary, the carts didn't 
load as easy, and I was concerned about voiding my warrantee.

I used to print exclusively on matte paper but was never fully satisfied with the depth of 
the black no matter the ink used. So, I switched to a luster paper and am getting much 
deeper black. I've used Ilford Smooth Pearl, Epson Premium Luster, and Kodak Professional 
Inkjet Paper (Lustre). 

All three give me excellent results. By the way, if a print lasts "only" 30-50 years, so what. 
I'm 47, the prints will outlast me and any new print can be made from the file.

I've researched the R2400, and have seen some actual prints (the best type of research, I 
think).  I'll be getting this printer next spring to use for both Black and White and the 
occasional color (gasp!) print.

Although concern over the quality of our prints is obvious, I think we can get lost in the 
minutia of it all. People don't walk around with measuring devices when they go to view 
prints. They just look at them and say "oh, I like this", or "That's dull".

This is my two cents.

Steve


> My own printing, my reading impressions (re archival/clogging issues)
> and the recent black only print exchange have gotten me here:
> 
> 1) Black Only works wonderfully with selected images. QTR is much
> better with most if one prints above 6X9 and does not want a grainy-35
> look. It's nice to have the option because that "grany-35-look" can be
> a positive (referring here to scans, where we have the advantage of an
> original negative to explore, rather than to digital camera files
> where the tendency seems to be to emulate film.
> 
> 2)There's no visual advantage to Epson pigment over Eboni except for
> personal preference, warm/cool. They differ substantially in  ease of
> availability, reliability/clogging (obvious from this Forum). Archival
> difference is arguable, MIS seems to be in continual change while
> Epson seems to be stable.
> 
> 3) Eboni on Epson Premium Semi matte is unattractive with Eboni due to
> bronzing....would be adequate for PR photos. Both Epson and Eboni
> rival silver prints in matte, are far short of what's readily
> accomplished with silver prints on semi-matte/semi-gloss. 
> 
> Disagree?
> 
> I'm asking because I'm pondering a dedicated B&W printer... currently
> use a 2200 with Epson pigments, print 50% color. I might want a 
> 2200/4000...might consider another type.
> 
> John Kelly/Albuquerque