Digital BW, The Print

My point is that 2200s are dying off, and technical questions have
increasingly had to do with 3rd party inks and clogs (with 1280 they
usually had to do with . 

A reliable 2200 with QTR and OEM is a wonderful B&W combo...I hope it
lets my machine keep running happily until whatever follows 2400 or
3800. I don't have the time for clogs or for the grief that's
routinely reported with refills and CIS systems.  
 
Cone (and MIS UT7) undoubtedly can (slightly)improve B&W tonality with
2200, but that's not been significant in the prints I've seen. Might
be more apparent in bigger prints than 2200 can generate, or from
scans of large format Ansel-aspirant negatives. 

I won't argue my point very far except to suggest that if one wants a
nearly perfectly trouble free 2200 (like mine) and doesn't mind the
expense of OEM ink, OEM seems the way to fly until it wears out (which
it will sooner with 300gsm papers and, seemingly, some of today's
coatings).  

 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Whistance"
<david.whistance@...> wrote:
>
> John
> 
> Although it is indeed very good I don't think that QTR with OEM inks
comes
> anywhere near the Cone K7 inks in terms of tonal graduation or
smoothness
> both of which are more important to me than outright Dmax.
> 
> David Whistance
> 
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
john kelly
>   Sent: 27 October 2007 14:45
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: [Digital BW] 2200 death and non-OEM
> 
> 
>   One lesson we might draw from the years of weeping
>   here about clogged 2200 is to avoid 3rd party ink in
>   2200.
> 
>   Easily 90% of the tears involve 3rd party inks.
> 
>   (someone happy with non-OEM usually jumps in to blame
>   users rather than ink, but I generously attribute
>   their reports of success to luck).
> 
>   Another observation is that reports of clogging seem
>   to be increasing. Perhaps more people are using 3rd
>   party inks, or perhaps 2200's are dying of old age.
> 
>   Having seen lots of examples of MIS/Piezo/OEM, QTR
>   with OEM looks as good as alternatives anyway. MIS and
>   Piezotone may produce faintly measurably better blacks
>   on some papers, but OEM still reportedly does better
>   on others, and the papers are changing.
> 
>   Some measurement reports seem dubious, some measuring
>   folks seem constantly to be changing papers ( their
>   love may be tinkering more than photography, and this
>   is a printing Group, not a photo group after all).
> 
>   My own reluctant decision is to give my mortally
>   clogged non-OEM 2200 a viking funeral and to continue
>   to love my OEM 2200 until something better than 2400
>   comes along (it sounds like 1800 is an Edsel).
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>