Digital BW, The Print

I can report a more positive experience with both the C86 and R200:

- One C86 dedicated to B&W using MIS UT-FSN. I create transfer
  curves for each paper using an X-Rite 810 densitometer. Prints on
   Epson Enhanced Matte, Arches Infinity, Cranes Museo, and
   Moab Entrada have been exceptional. Most of my prints are images
   scanned from medium format film, and I do not see any unwanted 
   texture in the highlights. I buy MIS ink in 4oz bottles, and it has
   performed very consistently. I do have issues with the
   C86 -- build quality is not robust, the platen is not adjustable
   to accomodate heavy fine art papers, and like most Epson printers,
   it is disposable rather than maintainable. My C86 has stopped 
    producing perfect nozzle checks, so I need to replace it.

- Two R220's: one dedicated to digital negatives, and one I am still
   testing as a replacement for the C86. The R220 is faster and 
   produces slightly smoother prints than the R220. Somethimes this
   is only apparent using a loupe. For some unexplainable reason,
   the R220 prints are a bit cooler than those on the C86 even though
   paper and ink are the same. The digital negatives on Pictorico
   using the native R220 inkset are very good and dry quickly with
   no smearing.

I wouldn't mind buying an R2400, but I don't want to print B&W using
only three shades of black, and I don't know how to map an MIS inkset
to this printer. Bottom line: the small format Epsons are capable of
extraordinary results, especially for the money, but they are not
consistent from unit to unit, long-lived, or maintainable. The larger
format printers have their own problems

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
>
> For me the biggest drawback to digital photography has been 
> unreliability.  My C86 just died.  I've had it, what, a couple of 
> months?  During that time I made maybe two or three prints that I'm 
> happy with.  I was using the MIS EZ system, and I had problems with 
> nozzle clogs and ink blobs on the prints, as well as leaky cartridges.  
> Given the time and money I spent, this experience wasn't a good one. 
> Even when it did work properly, the C86 did a poor job on scan from 
> medium format and large format negatives, because of the texture in the 
> highlights. Moreover, spraying prints is unacceptable.  I don't have an 
> indoor spray booth, nor am I likely to get one soon, and it's too cold 
> to spray outside at the moment.  In any case I found that spraying left 
> a nasty texture on the prints. 
> 
> On the plus side, I did scan and print a large number of my parents's 
> slides from the 50's and 60's on a different C86 with MIS PRO inks.  
> These turned out very well.  Since many of the slides had faded 
> considerably, or had other problems, printing them optically would have 
> been much harder, and I probably wouldn't have gotten results as
good as 
> from digital printing.
> 
> So now that my monochrome inkjet is down, I'm stuck with a fair amount 
> of ink that I can't use, and apparently I need a new printer.  Given my 
> problems with the c86, I'm very hesitent to try the R220.  It's not the 
> cost of the printer so much, but the cost of my time that bothers me, 
> and the cost of the consumables is not inconsequential.  I like the
idea 
> of the r2400, but I'm concerned about the cost of consumables. Using
MIS 
> inks is a possibility, but I have serious concerns about their quality 
> control. Maybe I should go back to the darkroom and check in on digital 
> in another couple of years.
>