Digital BW, The Print

I started printing digitally about 4 years ago with a 1280 and the UT2
inkset. I was able to produce very nice b&w prints using MIS's ut2 and
Paul roark curves, but had trouble with clogs. Since then, I have had
two 1280's. Both developed a problem with the head in a relatively
short time - about a year. 

I purchased a R2400 8 months ago, and haven't had any significant
problems. Be aware, however, that in my experience the R2400 uses much
more ink than the 1280, so it can be expensive to operate unless you
use third party inks and refill your own carts. You can get ink from
MIS, or from other suppliers that sell Image Specialist's inks, like
Precision color (http://home.eol.ca/~mikling/). I have found that
these inks are very similar to the original epson - so much that
profiles made for the k3 inks work very well with them.

But you already have own two 1280s, so if you are not having clog
problems, I think that with the ut2 and Paul's curves you can produce
excelent b&w prints. The prints I get from my 2400 are very good, but
I don't think that they are better than the ones I got from the
1280/ut2. Color is another matter - the epson inks for the 1280 are
dyes and the color prints that I produced with them didn't last long.
But for b&w, I feel that the advantages of the 2400 are more in terms
of easier maintenance and faster printing speed rather than print
quality - when using the ut2 inks in the 1280. 

Hopefully, in a few years I will be able to say that the 2400 have
another advantage over the 1280: durability. 

Best wishes,

Manuel


--- 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.
>