Digital BW, The Print

p.s: as pointed out by others while 8.5" is the max
width - it can print longer - 12" for example , but
you would need to custom cut the paper...Michael
Vendrell

--- Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:

> Ginny, YEP, you are correct. 8.5" width is the max
> for
> the R220. But it's a great little printer and so
> cheap
> with rebates,promotions, etc. (~$0 to $99) it's easy
> to own several with different ink set-ups, etc. And
> with Paul Roarks UT2 inks you can print "quad
> -tone"[actually 6 black positions with 3 different
> dilutions as I understand it) or BO.   See Paul
> Roarks
> site for this info if you're interested. It's a
> great
> companion site for Clayton's.  I personally like the
> Warm set which is 100% carbon with Eboni in the K
> position.
> 
> --- ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for sharing all this Michael. It is useful
> > for me to learn.
> > Am I correct that the R220 limits you to 8X10
> > prints?
> > 
> > Regards
> > Ginny
> > 
> > --- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > Michael Vendrell
> > <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:12:34 -0800 (PST)
> > > > From: Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 4800 vs.
> > 2400
> > > > question
> > > > To: Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...>
> > > > 
> > > > p.s. BO on the 2200 using either OEM MK
> (warmer)
> > or
> > > > Eboni (more neutral) onto uncoated Arches
> > Watercolor
> > > > paper (either hot press [smoother] or cold
> press
> > > > [more
> > > > texture]) produces a very pleasing
> platinum-like
> > > > print
> > > > suitable for some images that do not require
> > high
> > > > d-max or high sharpness.  This is truly carbon
> > on
> > > > cotton and can look wonderful for the right
> kind
> > of
> > > > image. 
> > > > 
> > > > Arches is sized with gelatin but is otherwise
> > > > uncoated. The company has been around since
> > 1492,
> > > > has
> > > > been makingthe paper more or less the same way
> > since
> > > > then, and Arches is more or less the standard
> > for
> > > > watercolorists.  I have also used it for gum
> > > > bi-chromate printing and it works very well
> for
> > that
> > > > as well. It is inexpensive relative to coated
> > papers
> > > > and there are similar gelatin sized but
> > otherwise
> > > > uncoated papers  for even less. e.g. Here in
> St.
> > > > Paul,MN the local art supply house "Wet Paint"
> > sells
> > > > a
> > > > re-branded watercolor paper from the UK for a
> > quite
> > > > competitive price. N.B Watercolor paper sizes
> > are
> > > > non-standard for the US market and you would
> > need a
> > > > proper paper cutter if you wanted to cut these
> > to
> > > > standard US sizes such as 8.5" and 13"
> widths.)
> > > > 
> > > > Paul Roark also has some ICC profiles for
> > printing
> > > > on
> > > > Arches with UT2 ink-sets in the R220 - I've
> been
> > > > intending to give that approach a try in my
> R220
> > but
> > > > haven't gotten around to it as yet.  If anyone
> > else
> > > > has tried that - I would be quite interested
> in
> > > > their
> > > > results.
> > > > 
> > > > This is one of the only areas in which I can
> add
> > to
> > > > what Clayton has so beautifully put togrther
> on
> > his
> > > > site - a true gem...
> > > > 
> > > > Michael Vendrell
> > > > 
> > > > --- Michael Vendrell <mjvendrell2@...> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Ginny, I agree with Clayton.  Your questions
> > are
> > > > > good
> > > > > ones that most of us either want to know or
> > enjoy
> > > > > reviewing and adding our $.02 worth...
> > > > > Michael Vendrell, MD
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hello Ginny,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >I must admit that the one or two BO good
> > prints
> > > > I
> > > > > > got out of my 
> > > > > > >1280 were, indeed, more pleasing to my
> eye
> > than
> > > > > > those made with 
> > > > > > >my 1800.  They had a very open, warm
> toned,
> > > > > > luminous look on 
> > > > > > >Epson Enhanced Matte.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yep.  In spite of its graininess, BO
> remains
> > > > > popular
> > > > > > with a lot of
> > > > > > photographers.  Over the past few years
> > there
> > > > have
> > > > > > been several
> > > > > > reports of people showing pairs of
> identical
> > > > > images
> > > > > > printed with BO
> > > > > > and full ink, to laypersons, who chose the
> > BO
> > > > one
> > > > > > because "it looks
> > > > > > better".  It has fine qualities, you just
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > choose which images
> > > > > > to use it with.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >What printer would be most trouble-free
> > > > (blockage
> > > > > > wise) with BO if 
> > > > > > >I wanted to print up to 11X14?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The 2200 is a really fine BO printer.  The
> > only
> > > > > > thing better (that I
> > > > > > know of) is the 4000.  It has a more
> random
> > > > dither
> > > > > > pattern which
> > > > > > results in slightly smoother tones.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > BTW, I must disagree with the person who
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > to go do some
> > > > > > research on your own - your questions are
> > most
> > > > > > welcome.  It's what
> > > > > > this forum is all about, so ask all you
> > want. 
> > > > > There
> > > > > > are lots of
> > > > > > silent readers who I'm sure will be
> > benefitting
> > > > > from
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > discussions, so you are asking for them as
> > well.
> > > > 
> > > > > > This forum is not
> > > > > > just for the convenience of more
> experienced
> > > > > users. 
> > > > > > That's my .02 worth.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Clayton
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Info on black and white digital printing
> at 
> >   
> > > > > > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best
> spam
> > > > > protection around 
> > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > > > protection around 
> > > > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around 
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com