Digital BW, The Print

I can't comment on the 1280 or 1290, but can comment on the R2400. 
That comment is that you would not regret moving to the R2400 and the
K3 inks.  I tried to do B&W with an R800 and met much frustration.  I
haven't had any issues with the R2400.

Check out Clayton Jones' site for lots of great information.

keith z

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "alan9990_6"
<aansell@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I would really appreciate your comments and suggestions on the
following:
> 
> I joined this group after undertaking basic colour management of my
> digital workflow. It seemed the worthwhile next move to try to get to
> grips with managed black and white as a necessary addition to my
> output. I have been following the various threads with great interest.
> 
> I own a pair of Epson 1290 printers (I believe that's 1280 in the
> US?) one of which is fitted with Epson colour inks, the other with MIS
> UT2 inks. I don't currently sell my prints but it is my intention to
> do so when I have finished 'fiddling about' and can settle on
> profiles, software and (obviously) pigment inks.
> 
> I've spent a couple of months now making prints from various sources,
> creating printer profiles, using the QuadtoneRIP with the monochrome
> inks etc. While the output is undoubtedly far superior to the
> 'straight out of the box' results and while I can see what I have
> learned and what the improvements in both workflow and output have
> been, I now feel that I am sufficiently wiser to re-evaluate the
> direction of my efforts - hopefully with more relevant advice and help
> from this group.
> 
> I am trying to make the best use of resources while trying to minimize
> the amount of potentially wasted effort (and money) in trying to get
> these older printers to produce increasingly 'better' prints. As such,
> I feel I have a choice. To continue with these two printers and see it
> as a solveable problem to improve their output with time, patience and
> more understanding, or to cut my lossses and invest in a new printer
> namely a 2400 or 3800 which, I get the impression, are pretty much
> 'bang on' straight out of the box, or at least with just a little
> tweaking.
> 
> Can any of you comment on this? Are these new printers 'that much
> better' that they represent a genuine step forward? Or is it that they
> simply make the processes involved easier while not offering
> noticeably different prints when all is said and done? I ask the
> latter because I feel that the final image is not judged on technical
> details (such as ink droplet size, or dithering algorithms) but on how
> the print actually looks when hanging on the wall. As such that's a
> pretty wide and subjective field.
>