Digital BW, The Print

On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:22 AM, chriskjezp wrote:

> I'm up to speed now on the R1800 approach thanks to Paul and others.
>
> However, I found out I can get an r2400 for $425 after rebate.  I'm
> uncertain whether the 1800 or 2400 would be better for my needs.  I
> understand that the B&W prints I'd get using the 1800 with Paul's
> approach would be more stable over time than the 2400 since they would
> have no color in them.  But as an amateur who is not selling prints
> and has no plans to, I wonder if I need the "highest standard" of
> archival quality. [snip]

Possibly for old B&W family photos which you scan and re-print,  
Chris? But even then the fraction of those which are sepia might re- 
print to better effect on the 2400? Many old family photos I see  
resemble a sepia print more than a B&W print if only, I believe,  
because they've faded to a very warm appearance. Nevertheless, I tend  
to re-print them that way because I think of myself as trying to  
preserve them as they are rather than trying to re-create them as  
they probably were.

My guess is that this is not relevant to your printing, Chris, at  
least not yet. But then your current B&W prints of photos of yourself  
and your family and friends might someday, if they survive, be old  
family photos. You could try to protect your option to print them  
archivally, however, by preserving your scans or digital-camera files  
for possible re-printing later to "... the highest standard of  
archival quality". That is essentially what I'm doing - I have a 2400  
but not an 1800. I'm very tempted to add an 1800 to the 2400, but I  
guess I can postpone doing that until Epson discontinues the 1800,  
possibly in favor of a newer printer even better for my purposes.


> [snip] ... If anyone has any feedback on which would be better for  
> my needs I'd be grateful.

I guess what this boils down to is a suggestion that the 2400 would  
probably be better for you, at least for the time being.
--
Sam