Digital BW, The Print

Ken,
>
> I have read that the 4800 is "linearized" in production, i.e., to tighter
> tolerances, whereas the 2400 is more of a "consumer" product.  So far I have
> not been able to determine what this means in practical terms.  I don't mind
> springing the extra money for the 4800 if it has inherently better image
> quality, although I don't print much larger than 10x15, which lays well on a
> 13 x 19 sheet.  As of now I am using the 2200 with UC inks and IP6 for b&w.
> I would probably get IP for a 4800 or 2400, though some of what I have read
> calls into question whether a rip is really needed for b&w, at least with
> Epson papers.  Any experience is appreciated!

I have a 2200 with UC/IP6 which I use for matte prints and a 4800 K3 which I use for glossy/
luster prints. A major benefit of the 4800 is that it is far more economical over time. It is 
much larger than the 2200 but also more of a production type of machine in that it positions 
the paper more precisely by itself, sucks the paper flat when printing, holds many sheets etc. 
Because I only use it for glossy prints, I don't have a big need for IP -- the out of the box K3 
black and white prints on epson premium glossy/luster are terrific with very deep blacks and 
are as neutral as IP prints.