Digital BW, The Print

Hi Djon;

I never tried QTR with a 1280 but I did B&W of several other 
flavors, including a homebrew greyscale ink set. When I go through 
my old prints and run across some of the 1280 prints, they often 
strike me as being better than anything I've done since. A 1280 in 
good condition can do as well as any of your above mentioned 
comparisons, though there's more learning curve involve particularly 
as compared to the 2400. The downside is that not having been 
designed to pump pigments, it is much more clog-prone than the 2200 
or 2400. Also, it is my opinion that the head manufacturing QC 
slipped a bit between the beige 1280 and the 'silver' 1280s. I've 
owned 2 of each, and the older beeige ones printed flawlessly, but 
the later ones had microbanding out of the box.

Hope this helps

Steve Karafyllakis

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" 
<djon43@y...> wrote:
>
> Does 1280/1270, with MIS inks, driven by QTR, produce large *matte*
> prints that look as good as prints from the 2400. I don't care what
> reviewers say, I'm asking what you've seen/done...
> 
> I'm especially not asking about densitometry or what one sees with 
a
> loupe: How do the prints "LOOK" as photographs?
> 
> I'm asking about matte/art/water color paper...
> ...NOT about gloss/semi-gloss /semi-matte paper. 
> 
> ** Does 1280/MIS QTR look as good from 35mm scans as black-only on 
2200? 
> 
> ** Does 1280/MIS black-only look as good as black-only on 2200?
> 
> I suspect a lot of fine 1280/1270, 2000/2001, and 2200 printing is
> still being done by fine photographers....yes? no?
>