Digital BW, The Print

Hello Alistair,

> HI all, new member to the group here!

Welcome to the forum.

 
>I currently use a 2200 and EEM for both color and BW. When I bought 
>the 2200 it was state of the art and EEM was widely regarded as a 
>great paper. Now it has been relegated to the status of proof paper...

I first got into this late in 2001, and even way back then when I
first lurked in this forum and EEM was called EAM, I was told it was a
great proof paper but not to be used for final archival prints.  I
don't know where you got the impression that EEM is archival (if
that's what you mean by "great"), but I can't recall it's ever being
considered archival in this forum.  In fact, the greater BW digital
printing community, if I have my history correct, were among the first
to call Epson to task for using "Archival" in the name (EAM = Epson
Archival Matte) when it clearly isn't.  Public outcry finally made
them change the name.  EEM _is_ a great paper in terms of it's
appearance.  Great dmax, good shadow separation, etc.  It's just not
acid free and yellows quite rapidly due apparently to some sort of
short term OBA in the coating.


>and the 2200 is old technology.

Yes, but it's still an excellent printer. 


 
>Having said that I have been very happy with the results and 
>performance of this combo. However I and intrigued by the progress 
>made by the technology and and thinking of updating.
> 
>I have been considering moving to an 1800 or 2400/3800 and convert 
>the 2200 to quadtone and keep it for BW. 
> 
>My first question then is whether this still makes sense or have 
>things progressed to the point that a K3 printer will give me BW 
>prints as good as any quadtone and the quadtone route is no longer 
>worth the effort. If quadtone is still worth it, what is the 
>currently recommended solution?

The K3 printers are great for excellent out-of-the-box BW printing. 
The K3 inks are especially advantageous with PK on RC type papers
(much less bronzing and gloss differential).  With matte papers it's
more a matter of convenience (although they are much faster and
quieter too).  With the 2200 you must use a RIP, while the ABW mode is
essentially a built in RIP.  The end results are in the same league.

Some people use a RIP with K3 printers in order to have the good K3
inks but with even greater control (eliminating Y, for example).

As for quadtone vs color inks, with K3, color inks have caught up as
far as longevity is concerned.  According to Paul Roark that
difference is no longer a major factor and he thinks color inks with
ABW-type drivers are the wave of the future.

Another consideration is the new silver rag type papers which require
PK.  So far the K3 inks work better on these papers than quad inks
(that's my impression from forum comments, someone please correct me
if this is wrong).

Switching from a 2200/RIP/quads to K3/ABW will require a new way of
thinking, instincts and workflow.  You'll be back on first base for
awhile, experimenting, testing, finding what works best for you.  Your
favorite papers may not be your favorites any more.  If you use
profiles of some sort, those will most likely be useless and new ones
will be required.

Sounds like a major undertaking, but people I've heard from who
switched to K3 are glad they did and wouldn't go back.

I hope this is helpful.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm