Digital BW, The Print

> Nancy, if you are looking for neutral, archival b/w prints that  
> don't use ANY color inks, the
> 1800 is your printer....that is, using Paul Roark's workflow.
>          http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/R1800.htm
> check it out before you decide to relegate the 1800 to the back  
> burner for color glossies
> only. I am dying to try this approach but can't afford a new printer  
> right now. I'm still using
> my 2200, but only for certain images that take well to a single ink  
> BO approach. Paul's
> workflow uses three Eboni inks, and with the smaller droplets in the  
> 1800, prints are
> reported to be heavenly smooth. You can also still print color w/o  
> changing inks, but only
> on matte.

I have an R1800 with Paul's setup, as well as a 2200 loaded with MIS's  
UT-3D inks.

Aside from issues of how warm or cool I want the image to be, I have  
found the UT-3D setup to be slightly better than the 3-black R1800  
only for the rare image that includes fog or mist.  This might be a  
matter of taste, though. I didn't have any reservation about printing  
a commissioned portrait with the R1800 system.

As a *machine* I prefer the R1800 to the 2200. It is noticeably  
faster, but more importantly it has a more advanced method of head  
cleaning and alignment, and has excess-ink draining tubes that are  
fairly easy to access (and hence to run directly into an external  
container).

I heard one photographer complain about the color produced by the  
R1800 (in comparison with the 2200 and 2400), but I didn't find out  
what he thought the problem was.

Nonetheless, the 2400 was the replacement for the 2200, not the 1800,  
so Epson should at least have talked with you before "down-replacing"  
your 2200!

Myron